Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Transport (Eastern Region)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr.Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise in the House the substantial subject of transport in the eastern region. I have lived in the eastern region of England for the past 30 years, and have travelled its length and breadth many times by a variety of transport modes. I have also been a rail commuter for all those 30 years. Moreover, I have a long-standing interest in transport policy.
Between 1973 and 1977, I was employed in the Trades Union Congress's economic department, working primarily on transport policy. My immediate predecessor in that post was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and my immediate successor in the post was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). My immediate superior at that time is now a Member of the other place and the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, with whom I now meet and correspond to discuss transport and specifically roads policies. It was pleasing to renew old acquaintances on entering the House.
After the TUC, I was employed by the National and Local Government Officers Association and Unison as a policy research officer working on transport policy, among other things. I wrote a number of papers on transport policy and the unions' response to the previous Government's deregulation of bus services. I opposed deregulation then and still believe that it was a profoundly misguided policy. I am pleased with the publication this week of the Deputy Prime Minister's bus statement.
A few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Labour Members from eastern region constituencies who undertook an experiment to test public transport services in the region. We all travelled from our constituencies by public transport, meeting up at Stevenage on a Friday afternoon. Some of my hon. Friends may refer to their experiences later in the debate. The experiment demonstrated both the possibilities and the difficulties of using public transport. Some journeys were relatively simple; others were time consuming and tortuous.
North-south journeys on routes radiating from London are relatively straightforward, whereas east-west, cross-country routes are difficult. Indeed, the coherence of the eastern region is weakened by poor east-west transport links, and by a sense of relative isolation between the eastern coastal counties and Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire in the west of the region. With the increasing

importance of regionalism in our constitution, good transport links across the region are essential to the development of a sense of unity and a strong identity.
More important still is the need to ensure that transport links are sufficient for the regional economy to develop and prosper. The eastern region as a whole is one of the more prosperous in the country, but within the region, there are areas of deprivation and unemployment, notably in the coastal towns of East Anglia and parts of my town, Luton. Both areas require improved transport communications to assist their economic development. The region as a whole must keep improving its communications network if it is to develop its full economic potential.
A recent Confederation of British Industry survey in the region recorded a high proportion of local economic development officers stating that transport links of all kinds needed to be improved. In particular, almost 100 per cent. of them thought that rail provision needed to be upgraded.
The eastern region is well served by mainline and commuter services fanning out from London, with Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross, Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street all serving parts of the region, but all those services require new investment and upgrading to enable them to carry more passengers and take pressure off the roads.
In that context, I shall raise the more parochial matter of Thameslink 2000. I travel to and from Luton by rail every day, and during my two years in the House, have never yet driven to Westminster. I am fortunate that Thameslink is one of the better commuter services, at least on the north side of the Thames. I know that, on the south side, overcrowding is horrendous. I recently had a long meeting with Euan Cameron, the managing director of Thameslink. There is clear concern that even Thameslink's relatively good performance has begun to deteriorate, and investment in track and in new additional train sets is urgent.
The multi-million pound Thameslink 2000 investment programme has been badly delayed. The original intention was to complete the project by 2000. It then slipped to a start date in the year 2000. Now the project will not start until some time after 2000–2006 seems to be the earliest likely start date. Cash has been allocated—Railtrack has the cash to do the work—but no start date has yet been agreed.
Thameslink wishes to purchase a considerable number of new train sets to increase the length and frequency of its trains, and to take many more passengers to and from London each day. I ask Ministers to do everything they can to ensure that the Thameslink modernisation programme goes ahead at the earliest opportunity, and that steps are taken to ensure that Thameslink is upgraded before 2006. That could perhaps be a first task for Alastair Morton and the new Strategic Rail Authority.
I shall touch on roads, specifically the M1 motorway, which passes through the heart of my constituency. Last July, I welcomed the roads review and the decision by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to abandon plans to widen the M1 north of junction 10 through Luton. However, that decision made the need to upgrade commuter rail services, especially Thameslink, still more crucial. Car commuters cannot be expected to abandon their cars and travel by train if they cannot find a seat in peak hours, if services are not reliable, and if fares are too high.
May I say in passing that the privatisation and fragmentation of the railway system inflicted on the country by the previous Government have done nothing to help. I welcome the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, which I am confident will restore some coherence and rationality to the development of rail services.
Another matter of great local concern in my constituency is the environmental impact of the Ml motorway. Between London and the north, my constituency contains the only stretch of the motorway that passes within feet of homes and schools. The noise and airborne pollution, together with the recently lifted threat of motorway widening, have caused considerable blight in the area.
I have raised the matter with my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and have had meetings with the Highways Agency and the local authority. I am hopeful that noise reduction measures, including barriers along stretches of the M1 through my constituency, are a real prospect. I have also asked the Highways Agency to investigate whether noise reduction barriers combined with appropriate foliage can help to reduce airborne pollution in the immediate vicinity of the Ml, and the agency is looking into the matter.
During the debate on the roads review, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced in July, I was much encouraged by his positive answer to my question about possible measures to counter the environmental problems caused by the M1 in my constituency. I shall continue to pursue that matter and will not let it go.
Luton needs other transport infrastructure improvements if economic development and the number of jobs in the conurbation are to be maximised. On the positive side, Luton airport is expanding with large investment in new terminal buildings and aircraft handling capacity. The new Luton Parkway station will soon open, and airport passengers will be able to check in for their flights directly off the rail platform.
The translink corridor project could provide an important new passenger traffic route between Dunstable and Luton, on the route of the old railway line. That would require money, and people at every level of government must ensure that such investment opportunities are not let slip. In the best of all worlds, the venture would be a matter for public enterprise and Government investment. I cannot imagine such a project in France being delayed for years by shortage of funds.
Finally, I must refer to the motor car. The car is a boon to modern living and, for most of us, essential for certain journeys, but inappropriate car usage, not car ownership, has been the problem. I recently spoke to shop stewards at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Luton and drew attention to the situation on the continent of Europe, where motor car ownership is generally higher than in Britain, but motor car usage is lower.
However, exhorting motorists not to use their cars for inappropriate journeys must go hand in hand with the provision of first-class public transport services. We must accept, too, that public transport, in economists' terms, can never be a perfect substitute for the motor car.

Each has a role to play, but there is a crucial balance to be struck between public transport and driving one's car. The car remains vital for most people who travel around the eastern region. I am sure that other hon. Members will raise matters of concern for their own areas and I hope that the House will forgive the parochial elements of my contribution.
I have taken to heart one of the messages from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I have rediscovered walking as a mode of transport and it is not only cheap and non-polluting, but beneficial to my health. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the points that I have made and do what she can to promote improvements in transport in the eastern region as a whole and in my constituency in particular.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall address the House on the A47 Thorney bypass, which was one of the casualties of the Government's decision to slash their road building programme from 160 schemes to about 37. The White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" proposed massive changes to the road building programme. That proposal certainly did not make things better for my constituents in Thorney and the community is extremely angry.
I attended a public meeting last November, which was packed to the gunwales. There are about 2,000 souls in the village and I should think that every one was present. They are determined that the long-promised bypass will go ahead in the near future—and as soon as possible. The villagers set up the Bypass Thorney campaign and, such has been the strength of feeling, they have already held two rallies on the A47 in the village in which traffic was held up for a considerable time. They of course have the full co-operation of the police and the local authority.
The campaign for a Thorney bypass has a long and chequered history. The villagers have been campaigning for their bypass for 67 years. A campaign started in 1932, and a great Isle of Ely route was proposed to improve the A47 across the fens from Peterborough to King's Lynn, and on to Norwich. Plans were resurrected in the 1960s and published in 1962. A start date was confirmed in 1968. In the 1980s, a public consultation determined that a single carriageway should be routed north of the village and a start was planned for 1986.
In June 1987, the bypass was again confirmed, on environmental grounds, by the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport with a planned start date of 1989–91. The plan for a bypass was changed to one for a dual carriageway in 1990 and a start date of within two years was confirmed. In 1994, the Department inexplicably decided to test Thorney for trunk road traffic calming measures. I think that Thorney was one of three projects on which the Government decided at that stage, and I shall discuss traffic calming a little later.
The fear at that time, which I shared, was that traffic calming measures in the village were a way round going ahead with the bypass, and an attempt to alleviate some of the problems of delay and the high accident rate. In 1996, the programme was changed and the bypass was put into the second phase, but the real body blow came in 1998, when the present Government dropped the Thorney bypass from the road development programme.
Thorney is a heritage village. Its centre is a conservation area with 167 listed buildings, 116 of which front on to the A47. The road bisects the village,


which is linear, right the way through. Most residents are affected by the heavy traffic. The village is built on fenland soil, which is part peat and part silt, and the vibrations from the increasing traffic cause significant problems for buildings.
The village's terrific tourist potential is not in any way realised because of the problems of pollution and traffic. The traffic problem is essentially that 16,000-plus vehicles a day go through this small fenland village, and 19 per cent. of those are heavy goods vehicles. They cause severance to the village, because the road bisects the built-up area, and create noise and pollution. Even though traffic calming measures have been taken, delays are caused.
Traffic does not go through the village only during the day. The campaign team recently carried out a survey which found that a massive number of HGVs go through all night and, between midnight and 6 am, the HGV count was much higher, at 57 per cent. The village also suffers from traffic going through its centre seven days a week. There is additional holiday traffic at weekends as people go from the midlands to the north Norfolk coast.
The village is bisected by the road. There are two zebra crossings—one at each end of the village—but, during peak times, no one in his right mind would risk crossing that road. It is so dangerous that parents invariably take their children to the school, which is on the road by one of the zebra crossings. However, they take their children to school by car, because there have been accidents involving children, particularly those on bicycles, over the past 10 years or so.
Traffic calming measures are causing more problems for residents. The clatter of HGVs going over the humps and bumps and round the chicanes has exacerbated the noise and pollution problem that they were designed to solve. Those measures have caused delays, which add to the problems of the environment and cost.
Even the Government office of the east, which is based in Cambridge, has concluded that there are great merits in the 1996 scheme for a dual carriageway of 4.3 km, which would have cost about £15 million at that time. The Government office has also concluded that the accident rates in Thorney are higher than average, with clusters on bends in the road and at minor junctions, and that the traffic calming measures, which were installed in 1994 at a cost of almost £500,000, have not overcome the basic problems. Thorney's rural location means that public transport is not only unlikely to be provided, but would not in any way provide a solution to the problems.
The figure obtained by the cost benefit analysis is comparatively low at 2.3, but that is for a dual carriageway. The figure would probably double if the Government pursued their proposals for a single carriageway. Along with the villagers, I shall press for the road to become a single carriageway, in which event the figure would probably be nearer 5.
The villagers of Thorney would want me to put another point to the Government. I believe that every other village on the A47 has been bypassed, all the way from the midlands around Peterborough, across the fens and around Wisbech, King's Lynn and the stretch leading to Norfolk. Why, after all this time, is Thorney the only community that has to suffer such heavy traffic at its heart?
The GOE believes that an improvement in the road—even a bypass for Thorney—would help to regenerate the northern fens area. Wisbech currently enjoys assisted area

status, as it has since 1993—although that is being reviewed—and is at the heart of an objective 5b area, while much of the northern fens region has rural development status.
What is the way forward? The Bypass Thorney campaign submitted its proposals to the panel at the public examination of the draft regional planning guidance for East Anglia earlier this year. I am told by Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible for trunk roads, that the panel's report is due in mid-May. At that point, the Secretary of State will have the power either to accept the report or to modify its conclusions, but, in any event, he will have to consult those involved.
My constituents and I want the go-ahead to be given for the reintroduction of this much-needed bypass into the programme as a single carriageway. For all the reasons that I have given, we believe that the community needs and deserves the bypass. Other communities may not want improved roads—although I suspect that they are far fewer that the Government would have us believe—but this community does. The campaign will not go away: these people are serious, and they will continue to blockade the A47 for as long as it takes to make the Government see reason.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: In any transport debate, our first task is to strip away the ideology. Nowadays, too much of the argument is taken up by certain groups. There are those who see transport only in environmental terms, as an inconvenience or an obstacle to the pious business of saving the planet, having no regard for our economic and industrial needs. Some of those "interest groups" have no realistic economic policy; they are at heart anti-car, indeed anti-motor vehicle. Then there are those who ignore the issues of pollution and climate change. They are typified by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Redwood), whom I heard speaking to the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum. His rallying call to an audience whom he expected to be friendly was, "What we need are lower taxes and more motoring". He did not impress the institute, however, because most of the companies involved have signed up to the Kyoto agreement.
Then there are those who rage on with arguments about public versus private. There is the champion of public transport, who refuses on principle to own a car and who, witnessing a traffic jam, repeats in a sort of Orwellian duck-speak his long-cherished belief that Soviet-style buses always were better than the decadent private motor car. On the other hand, there is the car-lover who prides himself on the fact that he would never deign to ride in a lowly bus or train. Sometimes those hollow, stale arguments are dressed up, but we hear too much of them.
An oft-used maxim of the present Government is, "What counts is what works", and I think that that maxim should be applied to transport. A practical approach is needed, and I hope that such an approach will be reflected in the composition of the new integrated transport commission. I hope that it will consist of practical people with real interests, rather than experts with ideological interests. We need a bold approach, but an approach that is, above all, practical.
It follows that there should not be just one approach to transport throughout the United Kingdom and in every type of community. We cannot have a one-stroke policy


to be applied everywhere. We need to get that message across. My rural constituents write to me expressing the fear that they may have to pay a congestion charge to drive into the local small market town. Of course such policies have to be considered in the case of cities, but there is no prospect of their being introduced in small market towns.
Let me make three general observations. First, I do not think that people will accept less mobility than they have grown accustomed to. Secondly, whatever we do about transport, it must continue to operate for the benefit of our industry as well as our environment. It is an engine of the economy, and, in the context of costs and journey times, it is important to maintaining our competitive position in Europe.
The overwhelming picture of our transport system, however, is of a poor-quality infrastructure suffering from chronic underinvestment in all modes of transport. As we near the end of the century and look back, we see that the Labour party has been in government for only 23 years of this century. It is fairly clear which party we can pin the blame on. Our railways have been decimated and, unlike cities elsewhere in Europe, we have seen our trams being wiped out. Buses have disappeared from rural communities, and a sporadic convoy system has been introduced in towns. We have the fourth lowest number of miles of motorway per 1,000 sq km in the European Union: only Portugal, the Irish Republic and Greece have fewer.
That brings me conveniently to the subject of East Anglia. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the more western parts of the eastern region to talk about them.

Mr. Moss: What about Thorney?

Mr. Blizzard: Thorney will do; I can follow Thorney.
We have a poorer transport infrastructure than any other English region, and transport is now the dominant issue in our part of the country. Most visitors comment on the lack of modern roads in East Anglia. The traveller has history before his eyes as he travels. Footpaths between fields were widened and became bridleways, the bridleways were widened into lanes and the lanes were widened into roads, but, unfortunately, our roads still wind between the fields of East Anglia, through—and here we come to Thorney—ancient villages and historic market towns. That is even true of trunk roads. It is possible to travel up the A12 and to see tiny cottages below the road level, looking up at the huge trucks that rumble past. The further north and east one ventures into East Anglia, the worse the road links become, until eventually one reaches Lowestoft, Britain's most easterly point, which is in my constituency.
Our rail links are no better. Train services are infrequent, expensive and slow, and the lines are few and far between.
I firmly believe that we need an integrated transport policy. Lowestoft is simply not integrated into the national transport network. It is a port, whose function is to integrate land and sea, but it is difficult for it to perform that function when there are such poor links on the landward side. Lowestoft is further from the continuous dual network system of roads than anywhere else in

the country. Ministers past and present have often arrived late in my constituency, and have always been surprised by the journey time.
It is not so much that our roads in East Anglia are congested by traffic; it is just that the pace is so slow. The winding single carriageway is clogged with tractors, lorries and, in the summer, caravans. It is not only an inconvenience for the leisure-time motorist; it is taking its economic toll. Lowestoft has lost its traditional industries and it finds it difficult to attract new ones. What company will locate at the end of such poor links? They also make it tough for existing businesses—it is hard for them to expand. All the businesses in my constituency are unanimous in their view that we must have better road links. Poor transport links cost time and are key factors in business competitiveness and inward investment.
Some people sometimes question whether the link between transport and economic prosperity is proven. I mention just the figures for East Anglia. Along the A14 corridor, unemployment is currently 2.4 per cent. in Huntingdon, 2.2 per cent. in Cambridge, 2.1 per cent. in Bury St. Edmunds and 3.6 per cent. in Ipswich, but, further north and east, it is 9 per cent. in Lowestoft, and 10 per cent. in Great Yarmouth. There has to be a link. People know that there is a link.
My constituents are frustrated and angry about that point. However, they are delighted at yesterday's announcement that work is to start soon on studies of the trunk road between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, the A47. We are convinced that they will show it has to be improved and dualled, which is what we have been after.
Should we look for improvements not to the roads, but to the railways? I hope that the railways can be improved. Again, we have to look at practice, rather than theory. Unfortunately, towns in my constituency are linked by single track lines, with lots of small lanes and farm tracks crossing them. A slow speed limit has to be invoked for safety reasons. The only way in which those lines can be improved is by grade separation of all crossings—road bridges over or under the railway. That would be very expensive and time consuming, and I doubt whether it is viable. I hope that we can improve rail to a degree, but it cannot be a substitute for road improvement.
I mentioned the problem of heavy lorries rumbling through the narrow streets of ancient villages and market towns. I raised the matter because I am not clear where we were with village bypasses. Of course, we must examine all the alternatives before we approve plans for a village bypass, but, in Bungay in my constituency, a study has been done. There is no alternative, yet there are no plans for a north-south bypass. It has not even been put on the list by the county council, even though the company that is the main source of the lorries is willing to contribute to the construction of such a road. People in Bungay are asking whether the lorries are to rumble through Bungay for ever more. Again, we need a practical solution, not an ideological one.
In the most general sense, what should be the transport policy for the rural part of East Anglia? We definitely need rural buses because there are people living in villages who do not have access to a car at all. Therefore, we welcome the rural bus fund, over £1 million of which has already come Suffolk's way in the first year of its operation. That is welcomed by people who live in the


villages, but will more buses encourage a modal shift to buses by those who have a car? Let us examine the practicality of that.
People will not shift unless there is a regular service. If there are only a couple of buses a day, they will not wait three hours to avoid their car journey. Let us suppose that they would wait half an hour. What would it take to institute a half-hour bus service to shuttle around all the villages in East Anglia? The cost would be phenomenal. Existing services are disappearing or under threat, propped up by the county council. Therefore, although I welcome more buses, I do not envisage that buses will be an alternative to the car in rural areas and produce any real modal shift.
That leads me to the fuel duty escalator. People in my constituency, particularly those in the rural part, find it hard to grasp the measure. It is a blunt instrument in that respect. It is not a progressive tax; there is not much social equity in it. People question whether it can have the desired environmental effect in rural areas, where there is no practical alternative. Therefore, I hope that we will look at where we are going with the fuel duty escalator and its effect on rural areas.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blizzard: No, because I am winding up my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his contribution later and I want to allow other hon. Members to get into the debate.
I hope that the Government will take measures to reduce congestion, and that they will focus on the parts of the country where congestion and pollution are serious problems. I hope that they will manage to avoid any suspicion of a broad one-stroke policy, which would seriously worry those in my constituency and in rural parts of East Anglia.

Mr. Norman Baker: I shall be brief as I am conscious that there are local Members who want to speak in the debate.
From my knowledge of the region and from the representations that I have received, it seems that some of the problems in the region are common to the rest of the country, whether they be congestion, pollution, overdependence on the road network or the reduction in rail lines. Unfortunately, many lines were closed under Beeching. In many towns with which I am familiar, such as in Hadleigh in Suffolk, the rail network seems to have been taken away. Sadly, sizeable communities now depend on road transport.
Of course, for the rail transport that is there, rail fares increased by 74.8 per cent. above inflation between 1974 and 1996, whereas road transport costs have decreased by 3.5 per cent. Those who complain about the fuel duty escalator should bear those figures in mind.
The Government accept that the region is less well served by east-west rail connections; the point was made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Hopkins). All roads seem to lead to London, as do rail lines. If we are to regionalise our country, as we should, we need to deal with that fundamental point.
I want to suggest one or two areas that the Minister might pursue. I should be grateful for an indication on whether the channel tunnel will benefit the eastern region in any way. Will there be connections to the eastern region from the channel tunnel?

Mr. Burns: Stratford, of course.

Mr. Baker: Yes, but, to take the point of the hon. Gentleman, who has rudely interrupted me, we want connections to the eastern region north of Stratford. We also want to ensure that rail connections to Felixstowe are maximised to ensure maximum movement of freight transport by rail.
It has also been drawn to my attention that there is a problem with public transport links north of Stansted to Stansted airport. From London, the links to the airport are quite good, but north of Stansted, the links are a problem.
I draw to the Minister's attention one or two excellent examples of transport in the eastern region, particularly cycling schemes, which are an important part of the Government's strategy. Many towns in the region contain the highest levels of cycling. They include Cambridge, Peterborough and King's Lynn, although not, to my knowledge, Luton.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Or Colchester.

Mr. Baker: Or Colchester.
I draw to the Minister's attention Kesgrave high school near Ipswich. I understand that nearly 60 per cent. of journeys to the school are by bicycle, compared with the national average of 2 per cent. That success has been achieved by developers incorporating cycle routes into their town planning. Routes to the school from the entire catchment area were built. The result is that more than half the students cycle to school. Some people say that we can never shift transport away from the private motor car, but there are examples in the region and elsewhere to demonstrate that that can happen.
I regularly ask about road traffic reduction measures and the Minister gives me slightly different answers on each occasion. I do not wish to be churlish. I am happy with the direction in which the Government are going, but I should like some clarification.
The Minister has said in written answers to me that, in certain parts of the country, an actual reduction in road traffic will be achieved. Can she tell us whether any part of the eastern region will be one of the areas where there will be a real reduction—as opposed to a reduction in growth—in road traffic? Can she quantify when that might be achieved? When will road traffic levels throughout the country be less than in the previous year for the first time?

Mr. Miss Melanie Johnson: As it is very easy to misunderstand the issues, I should like to offer a perspective from the southern part of the eastern region, particularly Hertfordshire, which contains my constituency, and to sketch some of the characteristics of Hertfordshire. I also agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)


on the need, in debating and considering transport needs, to consider the needs of individual areas—which vary considerably, even across the eastern region.
Hertfordshire is the United Kingdom's third most densely populated county, with a million people and 19 urban areas. It therefore has very high car usage. Nationally, Hertfordshire has the third highest level of car ownership. Sadly, it also has the United Kingdom's second highest road casualty rate per head of population. Last year, it had 6,826 road injuries and 58 road deaths.
One of Hertfordshire's main characteristics is that primarily radial routes pass through it, from London, up to the north and east. However, there are few links in Hertfordshire between east and west. I should like to return to that theme later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioned Luton and Stansted airports. Over the next four years, Stansted expects a rise of more than 3 million passengers. We are looking forward to airport forums improving passenger transport in and out of the airport.
The A1(M) provides an important link through Hertfordshire, which also has a substantial road maintenance backlog.
I have raised these issues because they are important in considering transport in my part of the eastern region. The issues were very different 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, we have lost time in which we could have done much to address issues both of infrastructure and of people increasingly using private, rather than public, transport. It has been a missed opportunity, which the current Government must now try to salvage.

Mr. Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most recent occasion on which a debate on transport in the eastern region was held was in 1977—when, in an all-night sitting, some of the problems that she is dealing with were mentioned? After that debate, an Opposition Member—who is not in the Chamber—emerged bleary-eyed, asking for dual carriageways and for all the issues that my hon. Friend has raised to be addressed. He became a Minister and did some work on the issues, but not enough. I agree with my hon. Friend that not enough has been done in the past 20 years. Why does she think that is?

Miss Johnson: I can only put it down to the policies of the previous Government. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the lack of debate since 1977. What a tragic waste of all those years, in which—with investment and public transport—we could have dealt with the growth in transport need and population growth in counties in the eastern region, such as Hertfordshire. Until the current Government started to address the issues of bus deregulation and rail privatisation, those policies, too, were the source of more problems than answers.
Rail transport is a substantial concern to people in my constituency, many of whom commute to work in London and expect to be able to use rail services to get about. I receive in my office many complaints about trains that are too frequently over-crowded, and about the lack of services and punctuality. Often, commuters suffer the most, as they travel at times of day when trains are

likely to be crowded. I therefore particularly welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on the subject, when he said that he was "switching the points" on the privatised rail industry and clamping down on issues such as standing, train schedules and punctuality, which are all crucial to people in Hertfordshire.
Billions of pounds could have been invested in rail transport had the British Rail sell-off been done at a more realistic market price. It is very disappointing that that opportunity was lost. That lost opportunity is a shocking public scandal, from which people in my constituency trying to travel by rail to London or elsewhere suffer daily.
There are serious issues of accountability and competition in rail service. We need exactly the type of action now being taken by Ministers at the rail summit. We have to be persistent, and to support investment in rail.
There is some scepticism about some of the action being taken to deal with matters such as train overcrowding. The action proposed on overcrowding seems to be based on very old standards of what constitutes overcrowding. People who live in areas in which journey times to destinations are perhaps only 13 minutes are concerned about how lateness is measured, as trains must be at least 30 minutes late before compensation is paid. The relative lateness of trains is crucial to such travellers.
I particularly welcome the Government's initiative on the Strategic Rail Authority, which will make a substantial difference in addressing many of the issues that I have raised.
Rail issues are connected to the future of the east-west transport link that Hertfordshire requires. The central Herts passenger transport scheme is expected to create a transportation link between Watford—through St. Albans—and Hatfield, in my constituency. Establishing an east-west link is the No. 1 priority for the southern part of the region, as it would help to integrate public transport and provide modal links—which Conservative Members seemed to find so amusing when mentioned earlier in the debate. Modal links are one of the ways in which we shall tackle the crucial difficulties of transport.
An east-west link would provide integrated and sustainable transport, and the necessary links for regeneration in my constituency—particularly after closure of the massive British Aerospace site at Hatfield. The site may now be developed for housing and for use by the university of Hertfordshire, and by retail and other business. However, that opportunity will be fully realised only if action such as the central Herts passenger transport scheme is implemented. The scheme would reduce traffic reduction, and links with the university would help both local education and the local economy.
Those are long-term issues. Even if agreement is given soon to start planning the central Herts passenger transport scheme, it will not operate until 2006. It is another example of the long-term work that the previous Government neglected to do on behalf of passengers in the eastern region. If the scheme is agreed, by 2015, 9 million passengers will be using it. I therefore hope that, in October, Ministers will approve the scheme when the outline case is submitted to them.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has visited us on at least twice since the general election and seen what Hertfordshire county council is doing, she will be well aware that the county council is in the vanguard of addressing transport issues. The council has pioneered Travelwise to develop sustainable transport; gained European Union support for a business Travelwise scheme; increased its partnerships to reduce child casualties and to increase journeys to school by means other than car, which is the source of much traffic congestion on roads—the issue of car transport to private schools should perhaps also be examined; and developed safer routes to schools and the Walking Bus project.
Hertfordshire has taken all those actions to tackle the transport issues facing us. I believe that, with the setting provided by the Government, we now have the mechanisms necessary to drive forward transport—by rail, bus and road—and thereby to ensure that the economic future of the southern part of the region is secured.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this important debate on transport in the eastern region. I do not have to remind the House that transport is a crucial issue in the region, particularly for Norfolk and my constituency. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), although it is a pity that no other Liberal Democrat Member is able to contribute to the debate.
Traditionally, Norfolk has felt geographically isolated. It is somewhere that people travel to rather than pass through. Indeed, our national hero, Horatio Nelson, used to write about going into and coming out of Norfolk as though it were some strange foreign country. Malcolm Bradbury, the distinguished professor at the University of East Anglia described Norfolk as being cut off on three sides. He said some 20 years ago that it was cut off on two sides by the sea and on the third side by British Rail. Unfortunately, very little has changed since then.
I wish to raise two specific points. The first, the dualling of the A47, was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). It is a crucial issue for everyone in Norfolk, but particularly for people in my constituency where two large stretches remain to be dualled. The Brundall-Lingwood stretch, east of Norwich is a death trap for many local people and for visitors.

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under the previous Administration, no fewer than 23 Ministers with a roads portfolio visited the area and agreed that urgent work was necessary on the A47 east of Norwich, including the Acle straight linking Norwich and Great Yarmouth? In 1996, the then roads Minister took the project out of the scheme, but the present Government have put it back and are conducting a study. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the study will produce a way forward for that stretch of road?

Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that unpartisan point as he has enabled me to comment in an unpartisan way that, before the general election, he and his hon. Friends promised the people of Norfolk the earth and told them that the A47 would be

dualled. In fact, it has not been dualled. The Government have failed to keep their promises, and he and his hon. Friends now have to answer difficult questions in their constituencies.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Simpson: I am sorry, but I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.
The A47 has not been dualled. It is a killing zone on the eastern side of Norwich. There are also two dangerous stretches in the Dereham area.
The A47 is vital for two reasons. First, at the strategic level, it provides communications that are vital to all people in Norfolk, whatever their political views. Secondly, there is the matter of safety. My constituents of all political parties are disappointed by the Government's decision, after many promises in opposition that they would carry out yet more studies on the A47. Indeed, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) referred to that.
Under the previous Government—and under the present Administration—the A47 has been studied to death. We want action and the A47 to be dualled. There can be no more excuses.
My second point has been touched on several times, mainly by Labour Members who consider it an embarrassment. The continued increase in fuel costs penalises motorists in rural areas, particularly in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk where a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity for many of the poorest families who are penalised time and again. The proposed cut in road licence tax for cars with smaller engines is irrelevant to poor families with large cars. Are they expected to sell their cars and buy new ones?
Transport should be about offering people a choice. In most of Mid-Norfolk the geography of the area creates a major problem in respect of providing an integrated public transport system. Cars are vital in Norfolk, and it must be the Government's duty to provide every opportunity to support people's ability to use their cars. So let us keep the fuel costs down and make certain that our main trunk road—the A47—is dualled. Let us deliver on the promises that Labour made in opposition and has so far failed to deliver.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing today's debate on an important issue which affects us all. I also welcome yesterday's announcement by the Government on the multi-modal studies, particularly that relating to the A14, which runs from Cambridge to Huntingdon, and which is designated to start in 1999–2000. It is most welcome. The Cambridge Evening News conducted a great campaign and collected 10,000 signatures. The Government's approach looks at the whole area around the A14. It involves not simply building a four-lane highway through the middle of Cambridgeshire, but looking at other modes of transport—including public transport and the Cambridge-St Ives railway line, for which many of us have campaigned for many years—and provides an opportunity to get those issues onto the agenda and


consider them in a sensible way, with land use planning, public transport and road transport all playing a role in the economic development of Cambridgeshire.
I know that the present Government, unlike the previous Administration, will produce not simply an empty, unfunded wish list, but proposals that will have a real chance of being implemented. The previous Administration did a real disservice to the people of Cambridgeshire by misleading them about what was in the roads programme and funded. Their wishes were extremely misleading.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Further to the point that the hon. Lady is making, I hope that the Minister will be able to say not only that the study will take place sooner, which is welcome, but that if it concludes that the A 14 should be upgraded, that should happen quickly and, if necessary, be included in the Government's targeted programme of road improvements, even though it is within the seven-year limit that was set last July.

Mrs. Campbell: I acknowledge the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the point that he has raised. I certainly hope that the work on the road will be completed as quickly as possible.
Let me spend a little time talking about my constituency in Cambridge, which is not rural but has a great problem that affects many people. I receive constant complaints from a variety of people—mainly school children—about the difficulty of walking to school because of the enormous amount of road traffic that affects my constituency more severely than most. Some 40,000 people commute into Cambridge every day—an excessive number given that only about 100,000 live in the city.
People in Cambridge have tried to solve the problem in their own way. The city has one of the highest proportions of people who travel to work by bicycle. The figure is around 20 per cent. in Cambridge—a higher percentage than for any other city in the UK, and which rivals some cities in Denmark and Scandinavia. I have to praise West Anglia Great Northern railways for making it easier for people to use bicycles as part of an integrated transport strategy. WAGN has provided extra parking space at Cambridge railway station and railway carriages that can carry bicycles without inconveniencing other passengers. It has provided secure cycle parking at Cambridge railway station. If one buys a season ticket to commute into Cambridge, it is possible to borrow a bicycle free of charge. Those facilities could be emulated elsewhere and are an extremely welcome development. Real efforts are being made to attract cyclists.
There are problems with taxis that need to be addressed. I understand that WAGN proposes to lease part of the station forecourt to an operator of O-licensed public service vehicles. I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) also has an O-licensed taxi problem in his constituency. The vehicles often appear to be identical to taxis. Some operators have been using O-licensed vehicles in the same way as taxis, but they are not subject to the regulation imposed on regular taxi cabs. Not unnaturally, taxi drivers in my constituency are outraged at the intrusion.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is taking the issue seriously and will introduce regulations so that the drivers of such vehicles have to undergo the same safety and criminal record checks as conventional taxi drivers. I welcome that. I hope that she will also consider the effect on taxi drivers, many of whom have paid many thousands of pounds for their licence plate and are worried that they will lose that investment and be driven out of business by the unregulated taxis.
I want to know what the Government have to say, but I also stress the importance of making the unregulated O-licensed vehicles stick within the strict confines of the law. I understand that there has been some laxity in its application in Chelmsford. Taxi drivers in my constituency are concerned about what has happened there. I hope that any infringement of the rules will be taken seriously and dealt with promptly.
The success of the Government's exhortations to people to use public transport has created problems. Many commuters are finding rail services unsatisfactory. The Cambridge to King's Cross commuter line has been subject to various delays in recent weeks, causing inconvenience and making people lose valuable time and resources.
Stagecoach Cambus took over the bus services in Cambridge some time ago. We have had several months of complete disaster with the bus services. I feel strongly about the issue, because it affects the most vulnerable people in my constituency—those who cannot afford a car and have to rely on public transport to get around. I have had letters from elderly people who wanted to go to hospital or into town to do some shopping and had to wait an hour or an hour and a half for a bus, when they should come at 10-minute intervals.
I have had several meetings with the directors of Stagecoach. They are taking the problem seriously now and are effecting some improvements, but there is still some way to go. Anything that my hon. Friend the Minister can do to encourage quality partnerships between county councils and local bus operators would be welcome.
The park-and-ride bus service works very well. Unfortunately, it does not help my constituents, although it may help the constituents of some Conservative Members. However, it reduces the amount of traffic coming into the city, because people are encouraged to leave their cars in the park-and-ride car parks, knowing that they can get a regular and reliable bus service into the city.
I congratulate the Government on the long-overdue measures that they have taken to encourage public transport. I hope that they will lead to traffic reduction in Cambridge city. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take every possible means to encourage public transport, the increased use of bicycles and better facilities for pedestrians, which will all help to achieve the reduction in traffic on our roads that she and I want.

Mr. Simon Burns: I shall be brief, because time is pressing. I should like to talk about the issue that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to—the definition of regulations as they affect authorised taxi drivers. I wrote to the


Minister earlier in the week, because a delegation including my constituents and, I am sure, the hon. Lady's, came to lobby us on the issue.
The problem has arisen out of confusion in the drafting of the Transport Act 1985. We urgently need clarification of the legal meaning of the Act so that we can see whether it addresses the problem properly and can be enforced. If the law is so badly drafted that it is meaningless, I should be grateful if the Minister would advise the House of what the Government are prepared to do. The hon. Member for Cambridge said that the Government were committed to regulations. I was interested to hear that. I should like to hear more from the Minister about the background to that and whether she feels that we can move forward on that basis.
No one wants to restrict competition for customers and price competition that results in better value for customers, but it is important that everyone who provides a taxi-type service should operate on a level playing field. They should have the same safety checks for the protection of the public and of themselves. The same applies to pricing policy. In Chelmsford, prices for licensed taxi drivers are determined by the local council. Those who do not come within the ambit of the council can set prices off their own bat. When two groups of people provide the same service, it is unfair that one group is hamstrung by having to abide by rules and regulations—with implicit financial costs—and the other group is not. I urge the Minister to clarify the situation as far as she can and sort out an unintended muddle in the law so that we can ensure that our taxi services are efficient, first-rate, price-competitive and, above all, safe for passengers and for drivers.

Mr. James Paice: I shall try to be very brief. I thank the Government for changing their plans and announcing yesterday that the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon road would be brought into the first tranche of multi-modal studies, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, although she might have admitted that if the Labour Government had not taken the improvement out of the programme originally, the issue might have been more straightforward.
The stretch of the A14 from Girton, on the edge of Cambridge, to the Suffolk border is all in my constituency. Although the problems of traffic volume on that stretch are not as severe as those on the Cambridge to Huntingdon stretch, they are considerable and are causing significant problems of noise impact for those who live nearby.
The public inquiry 26 or 27 years ago proposed the building of noise barriers alongside the villages of Histon and Impington. They are still not built. I hope that the Minister will examine the Highways Agency's argument that the requirement for noise attenuation measures applies only to new roads. Many existing roads now carry far more traffic than they were designed for and it should be possible to put in noise barriers in such cases.
The Government have proposed to detrunk the A10, but we do not know what that means, when it will happen and whether there will be any dowry to maintain or improve the road. That critical link from Cambridge to Ely and the fens could be used to push the development

pressures further north, but that will not happen until the road is improved. I hope that the Minister will soon give Cambridgeshire county council the details of the detrunking plan so that the county council can give it the priority that local people attach to it.
The A142 connects the fens and Ely to the A 14 further east, and goes through to Felixstowe port, which is obviously important. There is only one village on the A142 that is not bypassed: the village of Fordham. I declare that that happens to be where I live, but the bypass is No. 1 on Cambridgeshire county council's list of road improvements.
Last year, I took a delegation, representing all tiers and all parties in government in the county, to see the Minister. She listened courteously, but was unable to put the money into Cambridgeshire. I hope that she will look again at what is a major requirement. A lot of industrial development is taking place in the area, and such improvements would make the world of difference to the community.
In the whole of the East Cambridgeshire district, atmospheric pollution levels are highest on the stretch of road where the A142 runs through Fordham. That is not what anyone would have expected, but all the tests demonstrate that that is the case. We are only talking about a £12 million bypass—not a large sum. However, the county cannot even begin the design or go through the necessary procedures until it has an undertaking that the money will be forthcoming.
I hope that the Minister will take on board those points, but particularly the need for clarification on the A10 and the need to look again at the Fordham bypass on the A142.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on obtaining this debate. It is notable that debates on regional and local transport seem to be more common—perhaps reflecting frustration and disappointment with the delivery of the Government's much-vaunted integrated transport policy.
The hon. Member for Luton, North launched an attack on bus deregulation. Unfortunately, the Government broadly accepted the privatised framework of the bus industry in the recent White Paper. We welcome any measures to improve bus services, but the White Paper has a sting in the tail. The UK has some of the safest buses in the world, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that we need those corrupt EU officials to tell us to make them safer. The White Paper says that the bus industry will be brought under the EU working time directive, which will force up bus operators' costs and reduce the number of viable routes—another great triumph for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Otherwise, the White Paper is a glossy brochure with a requirement for yet more consultation, underlining that it is more publicity puff that lacks policy. The Government are still fumbling for something positive to do. The White Paper does not radically change Conservative bus policy, but builds on privatisation and competition. Local authorities will need to put aside outdated anti-privatisation attitudes, and will have to work more positively with commercial operators than many have in the past.
The hon. Member for Luton, North talked about delayed investment in Thameslink 2000. That is regrettable, but at least there is an investment programme—including new train sets. That is a big contrast to the much-vaunted public-private partnership on the tube, where nothing is happening because the Government are hidebound in their ideology about who should own the tube.
The hon. Member for Luton, North said that there was a great task for the Strategic Rail Authority—but where is it? We are two years into the life of a Government who promised immediate benefits to the travelling public, yet the Deputy Prime Minister has been unable to secure any transport legislation. We are still waiting for the SRA.
The hon. Member welcomed the roads review, and—extraordinarily—welcomed the abandonment of the widening of the MI. Does he honestly believe that it is a viable long-term option not to widen the MI? He said that he wanted to improve rail links, and certainly there has been improvement. Despite his opposition to privatisation, the privatised railways will announce tomorrow that they are increasing investment by another £10 billion.
That means that the Government have inherited a £30 billion investment programme in the railways. Where would that money have come from if the service had not been privatised? It would have been stuck in the same groove as the tube, with no investment at all. Who seriously believes that the railways can be built to take sufficient capacity to avoid the need for widening schemes such as the M1?
The hon. Member complained about the lack of money for investment in local transport infrastructure, yet Luton airport is owned by Luton council. There is a source of funds. If the council were not dedicated to the 100 per cent. ownership of the airport, it could get involved in a public-private partnership to raise capital for investment in the airport.

Mr. Hopkins: Luton airport is a public-private partnership, and money is coming in from the private sector. However, the long-term ownership remains with the local authority.

Mr. Jenkin: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, by sticking to the outdated socialist ideology of public ownership and ultimate public control, he is cutting off his nose to spite his face. The council could raise far more money if it transferred the business to the private sector, as the Government are doing with National Air Traffic Services.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred to old chestnut of the A47 Thorney bypass. I regret that the previous Government did not deal with that problem.

Mr. Blizzard: They had only 18 years.

Mr. Jenkin: The delay and dithering of which the hon. Gentleman is accusing us has been mimicked successfully by his own Government. We must move on. It is odd that Labour Members pick on policy failures of ours to justify policy failures of their own. The Government promised an integrated transport policy, and they are failing to deliver.
The way forward is not another study, and the real reason for a study is that the budget is being cut. There is no alternative to a bypass at Thorney. Friends of the Earth support bypasses in such circumstances because they are good for the environment. The only reason that it has been delayed again is because the budget has been cut.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a sensible speech, and asked us to strip away the ideology—and he did so. However, the road improvements that he wants for his constituency to deal with unemployment are not within Government policy. Unless they change their attitude to the importance of roads to economic development, the hon. Gentleman will be a long way from getting those roads. Again, the studies on the A47 are just another excuse for inaction.
The hon. Member, rightly, said that rail in all circumstances cannot be a substitute for road improvement, and there is no substitute for the bypass round Bungay.
The hon. Member's comment on the fuel duty escalator was apposite. He said that it was a blunt instrument which lacked social equity, and road hauliers in his constituency are suffering badly because of it. We think that the point of an escalator is that when you get to the top, you get off. It is time that the Government reviewed the policy.

Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the outcome of the roads review, which showed that the routes to my part of the region, the All and the A47, were deemed to be justified on the grounds of economy and integration? That was clearly marked on the map that encapsulated all the policies. What we have for the A47 is a step forward from the complete deletion of the scheme by the previous Government.
On road haulage, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the KPMG report yesterday that showed that this country has the second-lowest road freight costs of all of the G7 countries?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should try telling that to his road hauliers—I would be interested to know what happens to him.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) talked about the importance of cycling, and I agree. However, I wonder where the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is, because Colchester borough council has been criticised by cyclists for not providing sufficient cycling facilities.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) complained about the roads maintenance backlog—which, I should point out, is getting worse under this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) talked about the dualling of the A47—another broken promises, and another study as an excuse for a lack of money. He is right to say that the Government should be delivering choice, but that they have failed.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) also wants a new road. It is interesting how many participants in this debate want new roads, contrary to the Government's policy. The outcome of the study, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, is bound to be the widening of the A14, and the Government are simply using that as an excuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) picked up on the need to clarify the Transport Act 1985. The official Opposition share that objective and will provide the Government any assistance for primary legislation on that score.
Transport taxation is rocketing, while spending on transport is falling under the comprehensive spending review. Vital investment programmes are being cut or are hidebound by ideology. The Government promised an integrated transport policy, but they delivered a standstill Britain, which is why more and more hon. Members are queueing to take part in these debates. They promised immediate benefits for the travelling public but they have failed to deliver.
The Government should put the environment first, put choice second and come up with real new ideas and fresh thinking to deal with our transport challenges.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Every single contribution, other than that of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), has highlighted the vital importance of integrated transport infrastructures for the eastern region. Member after Member, both Conservative and Labour, underlined the total failure of the previous Administration to begin to address the issues of integrated transport and its impact on a sustainable economy. Member after Member highlighted the failure of previous Administrations to tackle the serious issues concerning rural communities and the peripherality of the region.
In a debate as short as this, the contribution of the hon. Member for North Essex was contemptible. He used it exclusively for empty party political purposes. It was as ill-informed as it was ill-structured. His total failure to acknowledge the Conservative Government's responsibilities with regard to the issues in the eastern region was lamentable.
The Labour Government have transformed the direction of transport in this country. We have put massive funding into the eastern region, via the local transport plans and investment in rural bus companies. Every single contribution, other than that of the hon. Member for North Essex, underlined the fact that our actions will bring the co-ordinated benefits that will begin to tackle the serious problems that have existed in the eastern region for far too long.

Mr. Keith Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely seek your advice. The Minister seems to be including me in that blanket approval of Government policy, but, as you know, I expressed no such sentiment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is a matter of debate, not a point of order.

Ms Jackson: Conservative Members may have approached in a somewhat more oblique way the lamentable failures of the previous Administration, but that is a problem more for their consciences than for this debate.
Themes have recurred in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), whom I congratulate on securing this debate, and my hon. Friends

the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) all spoke of the serious problems of east-west routes in the region. The difficulties concern both the strategic road corridors and the railways. Without exception, my hon. Friends welcomed the steps that the Government have taken in introducing a Strategic Rail Authority and the benefits that will stem from the rail summit.
We are delivering on the strategic routes, which hon. Members have identified as the All, A 14 and A47. Let me remind the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that it was the previous Government who withdrew the then roads programme. There will be some disappointment that not all schemes and studies can be completed straight away, but we have to be realistic.
I regret the fact that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is not present. He left me a note explaining why he could not be here. I am sure that he will be aware that future investment priorities are to be considered by the regional planning bodies as part of their regional transport strategies.
Most of the issues that have been touched on concern how we can begin to offer genuine choice for the transport of both individuals and freight in the eastern region. Clearly, integrated transport is the way in which that can be achieved. We have already begun the process by asking local authorities to produce integrated transport plans. Perhaps even more important are the responsibilities for regional transport forums and regional development agencies. Transport is a major player in issues such as reintegration, regeneration and breaking down the barriers of social injustice: burdens left to us by the previous Administration which we are tackling with great speed and concentration.
My hon. Friends highlighted the need to use, for example, pedestrian and cycling facilities, not only to offer us greater choice as individuals but, very importantly, to begin to reduce the need for children to be taken to school by car. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield spoke of the extremely good work being done in her part of the region. I had the privilege of joining the Walking Bus when I last visited her part of the world, and a delight it was. Ensuring that routes are safe and reducing the need for children to be taken to school by car can make a contribution not only to reducing congestion and pollution but to our children's health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke about O-licences. As my hon. Friend said, we are examining regulations, especially in relation to safety. I was aware of the lobby that took place, and I have given a commitment that I will meet representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union's taxi section to discuss the issue.
It is entirely appropriate to touch lightly on the issue of quality partnerships, as, only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched yet another daughter document to our White Paper, dealing with buses and the way in which we can ensure that local authorities and bus providers, working together, deliver buses that will transform that form of transport from the old workhorse to a steed of great parentage and blood.
Huge improvements can be made to people's lives by, for example, the introduction of accessible buses. We want the process to expand. There has been massive funding in the eastern region from our rural bus fund and the rural bus challenge. We look to local and regional authorities to build on those innovations to ensure that we can begin to break down the social isolation suffered in far too many parts of the eastern region.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned detrunking and noise on roads. I am sure that he is aware of the announcement by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety on the criteria and funding that the Government will introduce to consider noise on roads that are currently outside the structures for additional noise barriers. On detrunking, negotiations are continuing between local authorities and the Department. It does not mean any loss of status for the roads concerned and we want to transfer a fair amount to local authorities to ensure the whole-life maintenance of such roads.
The hon. Member for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Metropolitan Police Budget

11 am

Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the Metropolitan police budget for the next financial year. It is right to start this debate with a few words of heartfelt praise for the work and efforts of the Metropolitan police across the capital, especially as the force has faced a tough few years. The cuts imposed by the previous Conservative Government, coupled with controversial internal reforms such as the introduction of tenure, have meant that the morale of the capital's police force has been sorely tested. After the tragedy of Stephen Lawrence's murder and the revelations and publicity surrounding the Macpherson inquiry, that test has been truly tough. However, Metropolitan police officers, day in and day out, have put those pressures and frustrations aside and got on with the job. We should be grateful to them and pay tribute to the excellent work they do for all who live in, work in, and visit this great city.
It is because the Metropolitan police have played such an integral and vital role in London that I wish to raise my concerns about the budget allocation made by the Government for the force next year. It is not enough. That is not only because the budget has gone up by only 2.7 per cent., when the Met themselves say they need 6.1 per cent. just to stand still. It is not only because the number of officers is falling by 75 next year, following a fall of 230 this year. The budget is not enough because, in the daily experience of my constituents, the police are increasingly overstretched and unable to do the job that the community wants them to do.
I am indebted for information about the key elements of the Metropolitan police budget for next year to the Receiver of the Metropolitan police and the Minister. I owe a particular debt to the receiver, because—as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill—I helped to abolish him, or rather his post. However, the receiver reassures me that he is happy to be abolished. I am not so sure that the Minister will feel that this speech is recompense for her kindness in ensuring that I received yesterday personal copies of the Met's new policing and efficiency plans for next year, but I thank her none the less.
The budget figures are stark. The small cash increases awarded to the Met for next year represent a real cut of 0.8 per cent., following a fall this year of 0.9 per cent. Nor do those cuts follow years of growth. The Audit Commission's report, published in January, reveals that between 1994–95 and 1997–98, the Metropolitan police were one of only three police authorities in the country to see real-term budget cuts. It has not been boom and bust for the Metropolitan police, but bust and bust. There will be no relief even after next year. In years two and three of the comprehensive spending review—the two years after the next financial year—there is little sign of a turnaround.
In practice, the budget situation is even worse that I have described, because of various other factors including, in particular, the mushrooming pension bill of the Met. which is largely paid for out of revenue. Other factors include cost pressures due to increasing demands on and duties for the Metropolitan police, such as those arising from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the new laws regulating minicabs.
The coming financial year will also see specific one-off cost increases for the Met, including the capital city costs for policing the millennium, the costs arising from the change in the Metropolitan police district and the need to support moves to borough-based policing. I hope that the Minister will address those one-off costs in her reply. Will she reflect on whether the Government should use cash from the contingency reserves to supplement the 1999–2000 Met budget? That would at least recognise that the Met face some extraordinary expenditure items next year—expenditures that the budget allocation we are discussing this morning has not yet specifically covered.
Over the longer term, the increasing pension bill adds 1 per cent. a year to the direct costs of the Metropolitan police. That means that inflation for the police is already 1 per cent. higher than general inflation before anything else, such as pay, is considered. The pension pressure by itself implies that inflation-adjusted cuts to the Met's budget next year, as in the previous years I have already mentioned, present too rosy a view of the underlying position.
Considerable cost pressures arise from the issue of pay, because of the significant problems that the Met have with recruitment. Partly as a result of the abolition of the London housing allowance after the Sheehy report, the numbers coming forward to join the Met have been falling. If the Met are to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities, for example, they will have to ensure that pay remains competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say more about the Met's recruitment problems, but, for my purposes, they illustrate the financial challenges that the Met face.
The Minister and I may disagree about many issues today, but I hope that we can agree that the Met's budget has been, and continues to be, cut in real terms. Part of the reason for the negative trend in the Met were the changes in the early 1990s to the formula dividing the national police budget between different police forces. That deliberately introduced an anti-London bias. Chief constables from outside London convinced Home Secretaries that London was being featherbedded. As a result, the Met have seen their share of the national police budget shrink from 29 per cent. before the changes in the formula to some 22 per cent. today.
We must now seriously question whether that squeeze on the Met can be sustained for much longer. I understand that the Government are trying to bypass the worst effect of the formula for London by increasing specific grants to compensate for the distinct national and capital city functions that the Met undertake, in protecting royalty and diplomats and policing major events. However, formulae that have served their useful life should be changed, and I urge the Minister to revisit the formula and tackle the anti-London bias.
The comparison that makes London's case well is how London's police officer establishment compares with that in other capital cities of equivalent size and population. While London has some 26,000 officers, New York scrapes by with 40,000—not including Federal Bureau of Investigation and anti-drugs officers—and Paris has a mere 50,000 officers.
London's police precept, compared to other parts of the country, is low and there appears to be a clear intention, which started with the previous Government and looks set

to continue, that this precept gap should be closed, and London's council tax payers will be asked to fork out more. It is possible that Londoners will readily accept that, but only if they feel that the extra money they are paying is being used to increase London's police.
The political problem that the Government have is simultaneously cutting London's police budget and demanding higher and higher precepts. How can such a perverse combination be explained to the voters? A member of the Kingston police and community consultative group, Mrs. Alison McWhinnie, put the point well in a letter about the situation in Kingston:
Local feeling is very strongly against the police cuts, particularly against the backdrop of what is perceived to be a totally unjustified rise in council taxes. Local people feel that they are having to pay more—to get less in return.
I hear that complaint increasingly frequently and I completely agree. It is verging on the undemocratic to ask voters for more money for the police and then, because of the complexities of the police funding arrangements, to proceed to cut the total budget.
The Government have only one major argument against that analysis of the Met's budget, and that is efficiency savings. The Government's view is that all the real-terms budget cuts and all the dire short and long-term budget pressures on the Met can be absorbed through efficiency savings. They have assumed, for example, that next year the Met will save 3.5 per cent. through efficiencies, of which 1.8 per cent. can be cashed in for redirection. Indeed, the central budgetary role of efficiency savings has become a pet theme of the Home Secretary. He seems to be convinced that the police are so riddled with inefficiencies that their performance will be unaffected if budgets are slashed.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: In my constituency, efficiency savings have meant the closure of a sub-police station in Ham. Local volunteers kept going until recently, but sadly that will not continue. The main police station in Richmond town centre, an area which is widely regarded by the Metropolitan police as the drinking centre of London, is manned in the evenings only during the summer. For the rest of the time, the residents have to be content with a telephone on the wall. How does my hon. Friend feel about that as an efficiency saving?

Mr. Davey: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that type of efficiency saving. New Malden has also lost a police station, and my constituents tell me that they do not wish to see efficiency savings such as that. The Home Secretary goes on about efficiency savings. Last Thursday, warming to his theme, he quoted the former Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the quote was taken in turn from the memoirs of Lord Baker—as saying of the police:
We have thrown money at them and we have the highest level of crime in our history.
The Home Secretary quoted that remark with apparent approval, implying that Labour agrees with the Conservatives. Home Office Ministers appear to have done a complete volte face since they were in opposition, positively revelling in the self-evident and all too convenient statement that it is not police numbers or budgets that count, but whether or not crime is going down. It is not inputs that matter, but outputs, they say.
Who could disagree with a search for efficiency savings or with the notion that the police, like all public services, should focus far more on outputs? We do not disagree with that analysis, but we do not share the Government's logic that basic budgets can therefore be cut.
As a member of the Liberal Democrat Treasury team, I studied last year New Zealand's experiment in budget setting by output. Output budgeting drives greater efficiency and enhances accountability because Ministers, Parliament and the public can see more easily how taxes are being spent. The estimates that Parliament receives become thick tomes rather than a few pages. They mean something, and debate can flourish about what is wanted from the police.
We agree with a focus on outputs, but I enter one note of caution. There can be perverse outcomes when budgets for public services are set in terms of outputs, with purchased amounts of services measured and targeted. Towards the end of one financial year, Wellington traffic police had carried out nowhere near the number of breathalyser tests that it was contracted to perform, and to meet its contractual obligation, the police brought Wellington to a standstill, breathalysing almost everyone in a motor vehicle.
Despite such occasional absurdities, output budgeting has largely worked in New Zealand. Directly relevant to this debate is the fact that when a public service analysed what it was trying to achieve, the result was not cuts. Indeed, in many areas, the police realised that more spending was needed.
That is the crucial lesson which I wish to share with Ministers. Focusing fully on outputs, such as reducing fear of crime, might make it clear that more resources are needed. To reduce the fear of crime, we need high-visibility policing, including, at least in some areas, more bobbies on the beat.
I have read the Metropolitan police's policing and efficiency plans for 1999–2000, which were published yesterday, and I saw how Government and the police plans are evolving towards output budgeting. A start has certainly been made. Building on inherited performance targets and indicators, the plans attempt to set out what the Government are trying to achieve with the police and to set out intermediate targets to measure and attain those objectives.
However, detailed consideration of the efficiency plan makes it clear that the Government's approach remains input budgeting. They have set out the outputs that they want, but those outputs are not driving efficiency plans. Instead, those plans are clearly driven by the desperate need to plug the gap in the Met's budget left by Government underfunding rather than by a more strategic analysis of roles, responsibilities and processes.
That is not to say that the efficiency plan is not excellent and might not achieve results similar to those of pure output budgeting: it is, and it might. It is right, for example, to tackle absenteeism and sickness rates, and to reduce them. If that is done, the police officers lost to budget cuts may, at least partially, be offset by the fact that at any one time, fewer officers will be off sick.
It is right to reduce the cost of buildings, to be more efficient in procurement and to use technology to cut costs. However, because the efficiency plan has had to

come up with very large figures for savings, over a short period, setting very ambitious targets, one is left with the concern not only that the targets will not be met, but that something is being lost under this approach. What is being lost might be services or features of the Met police that ought to be retained, such as the police stations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
Let me illustrate the problems with examples from my constituency. Kingston division has been hit hard in recent times. We lost more than 40 officers under the Tories in just the two years before the election. Last year, we were threatened by another round of major cuts, and only by hard lobbying of New Scotland Yard did the police community and consultative group and I manage to bring about a rethink.

Mr. John Greenway: How many of the 40 officers were in senior ranks?

Mr. Davey: A few of them were in senior ranks, but many others were ordinary beat officers who have been lost to the Metropolitan police or transferred to inner London. They are certainly not on the streets of Kingston.
Instead of our losing officers, New Malden police station was closed. This year, the Metropolitan police commissioners are back with proposed cuts of 14 officers next year, and eight more from April 2000. All the cuts are the direct result of Government cuts to the Metropolitan police budget.
Kingston is doing its bit towards efficiency drives. In February 1998, Kingston division lost 702 police staff days to sickness. A year later, that had been cut in half to just 328 days, which is excellent. Also excellent is the fact that, with intelligent policing, the burglary rate in Kingston fell last year by 33 per cent.—the fastest fall in any London division. That is brilliant work by the police officers of Kingston division, and I thank and praise them for it.
These efficiency savings and good performances have not prevented the budget shortfall creating other real problems. To start with, New Malden police station remains closed, which is very bad news for an area in which the police presence was appreciated and had a deterrence value. People must go into Kingston to report crime, which may even have distorted crime figures. There is no doubt that closure represents a significant worsening in the police service to New Malden. The sooner the station is reopened, the better.
A second major issue is response times, particularly to areas on the perimeter of the division. The Metropolitan police's policing plan acknowledges how budget cuts are affecting performance:
In recognition of the increasing demands for police services, and the resource constraints on the Service, the MPS Charter target for responding to emergency calls within 12 minutes has been adjusted from an 85 per cent target to an 80 per cent target".
That is an admission that services are being downgraded.
In Kingston, we have felt the reality of that. Constituents tell me that when there are problems in Chessington, say from a gang of youths on Hook parade, or problems in Worcester park around the station with vandals and graffiti, the police response time has dropped. That is borne out by figures supplied to me by our excellent new chief superintendent, Alan Given, showing that Kingston police


arrived at emergency calls within the 12 minutes target more than 90 per cent. of the time last year, but performance has dropped this year to 85 per cent.
A third issue is concern about recent upsurges in youth crime and petty crime in general. Local people see a direct link between this upsurge and the reduction in the number of permanent beat officers in the division. Gerald Lambert, a local neighbourhood watch co-ordinator, told me this week:
More and more I hear neighbours and colleagues telling me that they do not bother to report petty crimes because they are so common, and they know the police do not have the resources to deal with them.
The reality of the cuts is a loss of officers, and no amount of efficiency savings can hide that. It is all very well for the Government to talk about community policing, zero tolerance and tackling persistent youth offenders, but in Kingston, despite superb and improving efforts by the local police, such talk is treated with derision.
In Kingston, and probably elsewhere in the Metropolitan police area, there is a feeling that when the local police do well, they are punished. There are perverse incentives in the police formula for London. If that formula were fully applied to Kingston, we would lose many, many more police officers. Why? Because crime statistics suggest that we have relatively little crime by comparison with central London, and that there has been a great deal of success in recent years.
Where would such reductions take us? As Roland Kerr, of Kingston Vale neighbourhood watch puts it:
I am appalled not just by the reductions but by the continued reductions, year after year. At the "nth" degree we will have no police".
We must recognise that places such as Kingston are not over-staffed, whatever the formula says. I urge Ministers to revisit the London police resourcing formula to make sure that success in reducing crime in areas such as Kingston is not punished.
Other places in London are being hit by the cuts. That is why the main focus of this debate is the Londonwide budget. Indeed, my constituents want the whole of London's police to be better resourced. Higson of the Cambridge Road estate residents association in Kingston put it very well when he wrote:
We feel at times government concentrates too much on the cost of fighting crime to the extent they ignore the cost of crime to the citizen.
That brings me back to what are probably the core issues for this debate: whether efficiency savings can make up for real-terms budget cuts facing the Metropolitan police, and whether, when crime is reduced, we should cut back on resources. Efficiency savings ought to be a bonus to a local police force, so that it can develop services, not a continual requirement that must be met if wholesale redundancies are to be avoided. Efficiency savings are difficult to make when total budgets are pared back so much. When will anyone judge that the scale of year-on-year efficiency savings has become impossible to meet? Surely Ministers do not think that that model can continue in perpetuity.
Nor should Ministers be complacent when crime is falling. Falls can surely be explained by a number of factors, from under-reporting of crime to the relatively low level of unemployment. I am sure that the falls are also to do with improved policing, but they are not simply

a result of that. Even if crime is falling, surely we do not accept the levels with which we are left. Crime is still far too high. If the police are more successful at reducing crime, we should invest in them and their efforts.
I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge that the Metropolitan police budget is creating difficulties across London. Officers are being lost and communities feel that they are losing their beat officers. I hope that she will take this opportunity not simply to defend the Government's policy but to show that Ministers are ready to think again.

Mr. John Horam: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has raised this topic this morning. It is undoubtedly important, and I am sad that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber to hear what he said. It was worth listening to. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying some nice things about the Met. I believe that they have been traduced recently. They do an excellent job in Bromley. Their record in reducing crime there is good, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is not an excuse for reducing the number of police. The fact is that crime is too high and always need to be fought.
The position in Bromley is serious. It is no doubt brought about by the underfunding of the Metropolitan police in London as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a reduction in real terms in the funding for the Met and the consequences are spread around the whole Metropolitan area. It is apparent that the underfunding will be spread over the next three years. That is the problem. The comprehensive spending review locks in funding for three years so there is no likelihood of any change in the present position, which is extremely unsatisfactory.
As the hon. Gentleman also said, the problem is compounded by early retirement, the pensions problem and the exceptional problems of the millennium. We face a bleak future of inadequate funding. What underfunding means in an area such as Bromley is simple. At present, we have seven police stations in the borough, which as the House will know is large in London terms. Two of the stations—Biggin Hill in my constituency and Chislehurst in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—will certainly close this summer. The alarming thing is that it is rumoured that the station in Chislehurst will be turned into a large themed pub. Hon. Members will be able to imagine the concerns of local residents that a police station, which they look to as a source of security and quietness, may become a large themed pub, with all that goes on inside and outside such places. However, that is merely a rumour.
So two police stations out of seven will certainly go. There are also rumours about two other police stations. The one in St. Mary Cray opened only in 1992 under the Conservative Administration. It was campaigned for long and hard by me, by local councillors of all parties and by local residents. We got it built only after a great deal of trouble. It is necessary because the area is a crime hotspot. It has done a good job since it opened. Crime has been reduced in the area. It has had a wholly good effect.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton agrees that the existence of a police station in an area has a beneficial effect and reduces crime in an area. That has been proved year in and year out by the evidence from St. Mary Cray since 1992. Now, it, too, is under threat.
I am told by the local police that the latest position is that they intend to keep the police station at St. Mary Cray. I am very glad to hear it. They also intend for the moment to keep the station in Penge, which is also under threat, but it is likely that, eventually, those two stations will go. Then we will be left with only three police stations.
It can be argued that we should not put too much money into bricks and mortar; that it does not necessarily produce better policing and that it is better to spend the available money on front-line policemen. That argument has been advanced by the Labour party since the general election. However, that is not how the policing works out in reality. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a perverse incentive. If police stations are closed in Bromley, the area will not be able to keep the money in Bromley and put it into extra policemen. The money will disappear into a pot somewhere in London and will be dealt out to some other area. So Bromley suffers a double whammy. It loses two police stations and also loses front-line policemen. That is the problem on the ground.
In the current financial year, the number of policemen went down by 10 in the Bromley division and it will fall by an unknown number—the figures have not yet been worked out—in the next financial year, but the local chief superintendent tells me that it will not be by fewer than 10. So numbers are declining and police stations are closing. Not only that, but, with the new system for rotating police officers, home beat officers are disappearing after two or three years on the beat. The new people know little about what is going on in important crime hotspots. That is a further dilution of the professionalism and effort put into local policing. It is a great tragedy.
The three things that I have mentioned—reduction in the number of police stations, reductions in front-line police numbers and the increased turnround of police officers as a result of the new system—are leading to serious consequences for the further reduction of crime in a typical London borough such as Bromley.
I have more examples of the strains that reductions are causing for the local police. One constituent wrote to me the other day that her partner's tools had been stolen from his car when it was parked outside the house. There were fingerprints and mess everywhere. When she telephoned the local police, they said that they could not send an officer to take fingerprints because no one was available. So, although obvious evidence was there which could help secure a conviction, it was not possible to collect it because the resources were not available.
In my part of London there is a great deal of what another constituent has referred to as youth vandalism and terrorism. Other hon. Members will be familiar with the problem. Areas are troubled by youths who have had too much to drink and have too much time on their hands and

the result is bricks through windows, graffiti on walls, cars sprayed and frightening behaviour. That has occurred in a number of areas, and in one particular area recently.

Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that youth vandalism is increasing because of a lack of bobbies on the beat? I know that the police are keen to respond when a crime occurs, although he has given us an example of when they did not, but the visibility of police on our streets is surely a big factor in prevention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady should not make a little speech on an intervention.

Mr. Horam: She may be making a speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Lady is right. Although the police at Biggin Hill station responded rapidly to the problem of youth vandalism and were able to clear it up, there was huge concern. There was a meeting of ratepayers in the local church hall to which 200 people turned out because they were so concerned about the general atmosphere, the mindless vandalism and the fear that had been generated in one area. The police were able to cope and sent a force along and the problem has been cleared up temporarily—but it may well recur. A grateful constituent wrote to me:
However, we are sorry to learn that the resources of the police are being further reduced and that the Biggin Hill Police Station is most likely to close. This, surely, will only make the local problems worse and it will be only a matter of time before the perpetrators of this vandalism realise that they can resume their reign of terror.
Exactly my point. The closure of a police station will lead local youths to realise that they can get away with things once again and another reign of terror will be promulgated in the area.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Surely the hon. Gentleman highlights the anomaly between foot patrols and mobile patrols in cars. In a car, officers can attend two or three incidents in a short space of time, whereas on foot they can attend only one. Visibility is one thing, but we need to make sure that officers in cars have a rota to make sure that down time is spent not sitting in side streets but attending the very hotspots that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Horam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but policing cannot be satisfactory if there are not enough policemen. I am complaining about the reduction in the number of front-line policemen, whether they patrol on foot or in cars. That reduction is the problem; fewer and fewer policemen cannot do more.
A further consequence of the funding cuts is the effect on the confidence of local institutions. In Bromley, as in other areas, there is a police-community consultative group, which has been extremely effective. It is well attended—I go to its meetings whenever my parliamentary duties permit—and is a useful source of information to the police, the local authority and residents; it offers opportunities for people to ventilate their complaints. One of my constituents—a man in whom have great trust—wrote to me about a recent meeting of the consultative group:
The chairman allowed me to read out a paper which I had prepared prior to the meeting and members of the public present agreed with my views.


His views were:
Overall the members of the public are not happy with the way the Group runs. While the police listen to what is said, there is seldom any sort of positive response which we like …It seems that all we can look forward to is a continually diminishing police force even less able to enforce all the laws and discharge matters which they, and no one else, currently have responsibility for.
That is the problem. He told me privately that people were attending the consultative group less, because they did not see the point of going to meetings at which the police said sensible things and appeared to be trying to do their best, but simply did not have the resources to deliver what the local community wanted. That is worrying.
As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, the Government's only answer to these problems is efficiency savings. That imposes far too great a burden from one possible course of action, and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it should be a bonus and an incentive for the police to be more efficient, not a necessary criterion of their keeping even their current resources. Indeed, resources in areas such as Bromley are actually diminishing.
We face a bleak future, if we continue down the path on which the Government are set; it is totally at variance with the promises Labour made on the crime front at the general election.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful to be able to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave shortly after my speech. I have to speak in my constituency on the Government's new deal; I think that that is a sufficiently worthwhile reason for making a rapid exit.
My motives in speaking are similar to those of my hon. Friend. We can all see that cuts are taking place. I campaigned against the cuts in police funding that took place under the previous Government. Since 1997, that process has not merely continued but accelerated; in the Twickenham-Richmond area, we have lost 29 officers—more than 10 per cent. of the establishment—and the effects are felt every day. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam): although the police have received some bad publicity recently, they are an extremely popular and respected public service. The message is simple: people want more police officers, not fewer.
There are two essential levels at which we must analyse the economic problems of the police budget. The first relates to overall public financing and the familiar debates, which we do not need to go into, on such matters as Government public allocation and the role of taxation. In that context, the police service has seen a real reduction in expenditure. Although we have touched on those matters, they are not the essence of this debate.
My hon. Friend has already mentioned the one-off requirements, but he did not mention others; for example, if the Lawrence report is implemented in full, considerable additional costs will be required of the police service for training, additional effort in recruiting and compliance procedures. That will require additional budgets of millions of pounds, for which there is currently no provision.
In respect of national funding, I reinforce the points made about pensions. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is in the Chamber; he is

the leading authority on public service pensions, especially in the fire service where there is an analogous problem. I appeal to the Minister to consider that matter carefully. The fire service and the police have a uniquely difficult problem with unfunded pensions; pension obligations are now eating up well over 10 per cent. of their budgets, and that percentage increases every year. They have to make a trade-off every year between service provision and pension obligations. In the fire service, that has already led to a virtual breakdown in the service; in three to five years' time, the police service will be in a similar position. That needs to be anticipated and a radical solution found that does not merely start new pension arrangements, but deals with the outstanding stock of pension obligations. The Government have the opportunity and the obligation fundamentally to address that problem.
There is a process by which national funding is allocated between different police authorities. I confess that I do not fully understand it, but I hope that the Minister and others can help me to achieve a better understanding of how the funding formula works. Who sets the weighting between different police forces? As I understand it, the weighting is established by a committee of chief police officers who are not properly representative of the weighting of different forces, in that small police forces have equal weight with the Metropolitan police. That is wholly inappropriate.
I hope that the Government will consider carefully not so much the sums of money as the structure within which the formula is set, because it seems to be inequitable and unsatisfactory. It does not fully capture London's genuinely distinct problems. Some of those problems are acknowledged—for example, the obligation of the Metropolitan police to deal with the problems of terrorism or to cover the royal palaces. Some of those problems are more subtle: the fact that London is a centre for organised crime and is at the centre of the big end of the drug business. I am not sure how much those problems are reflected in the formula, either.
An even more subtle problem, but one that totally disrupts the funding of the Metropolitan police, is the labour market that prevails in London. It is exceptionally difficult to recruit high-quality police officers on current pay and conditions. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has made it clear that he is exceedingly disturbed by the way in which current pay and conditions affect the influx of new police officers. He has to recruit people with extremely low educational qualifications, or even no qualifications at all. He cannot recruit from those people who would be available if pay and conditions were substantially improved; he cannot recruit enough women, or enough people to achieve the correct ethnic mix. That is partly because the formula, set nationally by the committee of chief constables, does not fully recognise the distinctive problems. I hope that that factor will be taken into account.
There are some other relevant issues. The first is priorities; most of us want to talk about our own areas and the way in which they have been affected by the cuts, but broader service sectors in the Metropolitan police have been especially badly hit. The traffic police are severely affected; they have a relatively low priority within Metropolitan police objectives. Many traffic police officers have been redeployed and their posts are no longer filled. The traffic police admit freely that


enforcement of serious traffic offences is no longer being carried out with the necessary thoroughness. The dog service is another relatively low-profile police service which has just, rather precariously, been saved from extinction. Such low-priority areas tend to suffer in a tough budgetary environment.
We shall always argue for more money; given the pressures on public services, that is inevitable. But there are ways in which the Government could encourage the Metropolitan police and other police forces to be more imaginative in raising funding. There are two particular methods of doing so. The traffic police could become almost self-financing if they were allowed to retain revenues from funds; hypothecation might be productive in that instance.
A matter more parochial to Twickenham, and one that I have raised with the Home Secretary, is the completely inexplicable practice of large commercial organisations, such as the Rugby Football Union, that organise public events charging the costs of policing the event outside the ground to the public through the Metropolitan police. A major rugby international costs the Metropolitan police about £40,000 in overtime for extra police officers to police traffic and pedestrian movements outside the ground; those costs add up to about £500,000 a year. The number of events organised by such large commercial organisations is growing.
With other events and activities taken into account, each year several million pounds that should properly accrue as revenue to the public sector are being spent on providing services free. The Home Secretary should consider that matter. I realise that there may be technical difficulties: ring-fencing the problem areas; deciding whether to charge in respect of, for example, Chelsea flower show or only big sporting events; and drawing the dividing line between a big event and a small one. However, the issue remains important.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton for raising these issues, and I regret that more hon. Members are not here to participate in the debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief, as I am conscious that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) speaking for the Conservatives and the Minister should have the opportunity to respond fully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
I hope that I betray no secrets in saying that my hon. Friends and I tried to organise an opportunity for this debate, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton struck lucky. We wanted to have it before the end of this month and before the beginning of the financial year to which the debate is addressed. Like the Minister, I am conscious that this is the third policing debate that we have had within about a week. We had a sometimes fairly aggressive and heated debate in the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which was attended by the Minister in her capacity both as a Home Office Minister and a London Member of Parliament. Also present were the hon. Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
In that debate, we considered the whole range of policing issues as they stand and how they will be affected by the new arrangements for London. We are aware that the enactment of that Bill—which we strongly support on the question of police arrangements and in other respects—will mean that, from next year, the London police will have their own police authority, independent of the Home Office, which in years to come will allow the force to speak more boldly to the Home Office as the responsible Department.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate to acknowledge the establishment of the all-party group on police, and the role of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who chairs the group, as a measure of how much more attention police matters now receive in the House?

Mr. Hughes: I certainly do. I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who, as a member of our London team of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, has led for us on police and fire services matters since the general election, in establishing that all-party group. It is important that the police should know that parliamentarians support them, want to work with them and are well informed about some of the difficult issues affecting them.
Let me reinforce and add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton about the need for the Home Office not to be governed in its formula for allocating resources by the European Union-style, non-weighted voting system, whereby each police force has one vote, which results in the Met, because of that voting system and because of the common perception of the Met as a big, well-funded force, not being able to win the votes required to get them the money that they need. Of course the Met is a big force—it polices the biggest area and the largest number of people. Of course that force is numerically large, with 26,000 officers, which is more police officers than almost everywhere else; but no one has ever argued that capital cities do not need that intensity of policing. There should not be a simple formulaic response which states that police forces throughout the country must have the same ratio of police officers to population, and that is the end of the argument.
We must take into consideration the intensity of effort and work that London requires. I hope that the formula and its workings will properly reflect the fact that, like other London services such as fire, education and social services, London's police services have to cater for the demands of a highly complex and diverse community in terms of ethnicity, language, and so on. London police have to deal with people who speak no English and so have to call in interpreters far more often than police in other parts of the country. In the interests of solidarity and understanding, the London police need officers who come from the various communities. The issues are extremely complex, so to say that we must have the same ratio of police officers to people in London as in, say, Herefordshire—an area I know well—simply does not work. Each case must be judged on its merits.
As a capital city, London, by definition, has an intensity of demand for complex policing that requires a particular concentration of resources. My hon. Friend the Member


for Kingston and Surbiton argued that the number of personnel should not be cut. London, sadly but inevitably, has more serious crimes than places elsewhere in the country; there are more murders, homicides, manslaughters and killings. As I told the Standing Committee, I have been involved, to a greater extent than I would have liked, in working with the police to tackle such crimes in my area over the past few years. I can testify to the time and effort, the plain hours of work, required to discover who has committed such a crime.
It is no good saying that police must seek greater efficiency savings. Police officers trying to discover who killed Jamie Robe on the streets of Rotherhithe nearly two years ago have spent days tracing all the possible witnesses, talking to them, trying to persuade them to give evidence, dealing with their concern that if they give evidence they will be at risk themselves, protecting witnesses, and negotiating to ensure that people will be moved if they give evidence. Such an effort cannot produce efficiency savings in simple mathematical or formulaic terms, because the job must be done and more than one officer is needed to do it. A murder inquiry requires many officers, or a few officers dedicated to the task for the vast majority of their time.
Many of those officers work overtime and weekends, or come back from their holidays, to get the job done; they are willing to serve far beyond the hours for which they are paid, and far beyond the pay that they receive. Anyone who thinks that the police are slack and that officers often have idle time in which they sit and do nothing should realise that many officers work many hours more than the time for which they are paid and that they are never recompensed for that. There is very little slack in the service as a whole, and in some areas there is none.
In all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, no Londoner or constituent has ever said to me that he or she wants the precept for the Metropolitan police to be reduced because it is too high. That has never once happened. Londoners say funding should be reduced for some public services, but not for the police. They know that the force may not be entirely brilliant, that not every police officer is wonderful, and that sometimes things go wrong. Londoners know that there may be some rotten eggs in the basket, but we need a decent police service and we are willing to pay for it.

Mr. Greenway: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech; my remarks will be in a similar vein. However, does he agree that people want to be told the truth about why they are having to pay such a large increase in the police precept?

Mr. Hughes: I agree. That is why I told the Standing Committee that reports such as those of the Audit Commission are extremely valuable, because they force comparisons between police services and make police services face up to which of their traditional, often conservative, practices need reform. In Committee, I gave the example of the nonsense that, for years—even until recently—police officers had to do clerical jobs, such as typing charge sheets, that took them hours to complete, which was frustrating for them and a waste of their time, because a competent audio-typist could have done the job in five minutes.
I know of estates off the Old Kent road that have experienced a lot of youth crime, violence and vandalism, where the presence of regular police patrols makes a difference. Initially they may only displace the crime, but, at the end of the day, such policing does make a difference. If gangs of kids hang around and no one stops them or says anything and the residents are afraid, it is sometimes only the police who can effectively intervene. Only they have the authority, the back-up and security in intervening. Residents cannot do it. Sometimes they will not do it because they are intimidated.
Even though the front-line police officers on the beat are extremely important, we must not think that they are the only important people. There is also a need for back-up officers. We need police officers and those in the youth and community services to work with disturbed families and delinquent kids and to go into the schools. These are not front-line services, but if they do, not do the job, much of the other work will not be done effectively, with the result that we shall be fighting the fire rather than preventing the fire in the first place.
We need to ensure that there are efficiencies made to reduce the time that the police spend in court or waiting to go into court. The situation is better than it was, and the Crown Prosecution Service is a great advance, but the police still spend a lot of time hanging around in seeing the process through. The police do not want to do that any more than anyone else.
My hon. Friends and I have been briefed very clearly by senior Met officers about the recruitment crisis, and there is also the wastage of those recruited who fall away. That is a bad use of resources. We need to ensure that the police are valued.
We also need to ensure that we increase the number of specials, which is a linked issue. The specials do not cost nothing, but they are relatively cheap. Many police officers have been nervous about specials, but they can do jobs that complement the regular police service.
Lastly, in the context of the valid points of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, we must ask Ministers, to consider the issue of pensions nationally but particularly as it applies to the Met. My hon. Friends and I know that that cannot be done for the coming financial year which starts in a week's time. If as my hon. Friend says, we are to continue funding 1 per cent. more every year for the pensions of an ever-increasing number of retired officers—we are told that a quarter of the Met's officers are likely to retire in the next five years, which means that there will be a hugely escalating and continuing bill—money will not be available for front-line policing or for any other police services.
In common with all our constituents, we all value the police hugely. We are willing to work with them to ensure that they deliver their service more efficiently. However, there comes a time when the choice between having a service or not depends on whether there is sufficient cash in the budget. Our case is that however efficient we are and however much crime is reduced if we continue cutting the Met's budget in real terms, we shall cross the threshold between a city where policing is able to contain crime and disorder and a city where it is not. Once we have crossed that threshold, we shall be in severe trouble.

Mr. John Greenway: We always welcome the opportunity to debate police issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on his success in securing the debate. I am always particularly pleased to debate Metropolitan police issues because the House will know that, like the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I have some experience of active service, albeit a long time ago between 1965 and 1969. It is from that prospective that I join those who have again paid tribute to the excellent job done by the vast majority of serving police officers in London. As we are debating the Metropolitan police budget, we should not forget the policing that the force's officers undertake round and about this Palace.
The subject of the debate is very narrow. As hon. Members have said, the Metropolitan police budget is a cause for concern. However, many other forces face similar problems. Indeed, the situation is worse in some forces than in the Met. That is why the Conservative party used part of a Supply day last Thursday to debate the problems of police funding throughout the country. It was extraordinary, especially given what we have heard during the past 50 minutes or so, that by my count at least 16 Liberal Democrat Members voted with the Government against the Conservative motion, which criticised the very cuts in police manpower and in police services that Liberal Democrat Members have complained about today.
Last Tuesday, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made air excellent speech in the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill. I pay tribute to the excellent overview that he presented. I read his speech with great interest, particularly in preparation for the Bill's imminent return to the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems that London police are facing because of Labour policies. It is astonishing that he voted with the Government against the Conservative motion only two days later.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative motion praised the previous Government's record of investment in the police? Liberal Democrats were unable to support the Conservative party and voted with Labour in the Lobby because we could not endorse the Conservative party's record in government.

Mr. Greenway: That is an extraordinary admission, given that the motion merely referred to 15,000 extra police officers being recruited during the 18 years of Conservative rule, which is a matter of record. Today, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have referred to what they consider was the situation between 1992 and 1997. However, I suggest that they revisit the issue of resources and get some of their facts right. Metropolitan police statistics show that from 1979–80 to 1996–97—the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government—expenditure on policing in London grew every year except in 1980–81 to an accumulated 70 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can check the figures.
The statistics of the personnel department of the Metropolitan police show that in the five years after July 1992 the number of constables in the Metropolitan police increased from 20,999 to 21,541. Of course, the total number of officers fell slightly. If the hon. Gentleman

wants to find out why that happened—this is partly why I intervened on him—he should consult the Metropolitan police committee's annual reports. The report for 1995–96 shows that throughout the whole country, in the three years from 1994 to 1996, the number of chief inspectors and those in higher ranks reduced by 255. Liberal Democrat Members should examine carefully where things stood when the Conservative party left office. It may have been a useful device at the general election to criticise the Conservative Government's record—it must be acknowledged that it was employed with some success in London seats—but this debate is about criticising the present Government's record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) has said, over the next three years the situation will become progressively worse as a result of the Government's comprehensive spending review. That will apply not only in London but throughout the country and particularly in rural areas, including those represented by Liberal Democrat Members. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want to succeed in making contrasts, they should be a little more accurate in what they say about the position that the present Government inherited.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and if last week's motion about policing in the country had concerned what has happened since the election, we would have voted with him and his colleagues. However, the figures—which are the Audit Commission's, not mine—demonstrate that, for the last three years of the Conservative Administration, from 1994–95 to 1997–98, the Met experienced a real-terms budget reduction of about 2.5 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the numbers of police were also considerably reduced in the last years of the Tory Administration.

Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Audit Commission's reports and my remarks in the debate last Thursday, he will find that the Audit Commission refers to year-on-year real increases in expenditure. [Interruption.] I shall come on to the Met in a moment. In December 1997, when the Home Secretary announced the first Labour police grant settlement, for 1998–99, he said in his press release that the police were the only part of local government or public services to have had real increases in expenditure in each of the previous four years.
Any meaningful and accurate study of the past two or three years will demonstrate that there is a debate, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, about how the national cake should be divided up and what proportion should be allocated to the Met. We must sympathise with Ministers on that point, whichever party is in government. For several years, rural forces campaigned for redistribution of money from the Met to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Association of Police Authorities, which is served by several Liberal Democrat councilors—including its vice chairman, Angela Harris, who is chair of the North Yorkshire police authority—has pressed for, and welcomed, the move towards a needs-based formula, which worked against the Metropolitan police in 1997–98. That is the reason for the budget reduction mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
It is right that hon. Members should be able to come to the House and argue their constituency corner, and I make no criticism of Liberal Democrat London Members for using this debate to argue for the Metropolitan police. However, the House must take a more considered and comprehensive view of the situation throughout the country. The Association of Police Authorities continues to campaign for further reform and has criticised the level of the Metropolitan police special payment, which increased by 16 per cent. this year. We have to accept that Ministers of whatever party have difficulty in apportioning the overall cake to different parts of the country, whichever public service they are dealing with.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who initiated the debate, and his colleagues might have done better to concentrate on the fact that the overall cake for the country is being reduced, not only London's share. The country is experiencing the problem of reduced resources. For all those reasons, Conservative Members will keep up the pressure for a policy change.
Several hon. Members referred to the problem of police pensions. The age profile of the Metropolitan police shows that 25 per cent. of officers have more than 25 years' service. I elicited that fact from a written answer to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred in the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, and to which he has referred in this debate. When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, we hope to tackle the issue of the cost of funding pensions in the Metropolitan police. It would be entirely wrong for the Government to shift on to a newly created Metropolitan police authority a serious burden that is entirely within the Home Secretary's purview.
I must, however, point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the problem in London is by no means the worst. Staffordshire spends about 18 per cent. of its budget on pension costs, and in my force, North Yorkshire, that figure is 16 per cent.
Other hon. Members referred to the implementation of the Macpherson report, which the House is due to debate on Monday. There are huge resource implications for implementing Sir William Macpherson's recommendations, and the Home Secretary has embraced those in his response to the report which was published and laid before the House yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to the closure of police stations and the problems that that creates for policing in their areas. Other hon. Members referred to the problems of recruitment. That growing problem will be made worse if the Government implement their proposed changes to police pension entitlements for new recruits. That is an extensive subject to which we need to return on another day.
The central issue that the House ought to be concerned about in this debate is the effect on council tax payers of the Government's policy on the allocation of police grant to the Metropolitan police this year. The Government grant has increased by 1.7 per cent. The Metropolitan police budget and precept report, published in February, directly refers to the fact that the Home Secretary has informed the Commissioner and the receiver that he considers it reasonable for the service to raise additional funds from the precept to fund an increase in our spending limit of about 2.7 per cent. compared with last year.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey because it would have been better if there had been a little more honesty about the fact that the Met police can spend 2.7 per cent. more, but 1 per cent. of it—almost half of the money—is to come from council tax payers through a 9.5 per cent. increase in their precept. London is already the highest precepting area for police budgets. The figure is about 50 per cent. higher than the national average, and it will now be higher still.
The simple political message is that in the year ahead, Londoners will pay more for less in their police service. They will pay higher precepts for fewer police officers and for police stations that, such as the one in Orpington, are due to close. That is a scandalous state of affairs. It is typical of the Government's approach of increasing taxes by stealth, instead of being open and honest with the people.
There is also concern that about £20 million has come from reserves to provide the 2.7 per cent. increase. One or two hon. Members referred to the likelihood of unforeseen demands on what is already a £2 billion budget. There is a need for adequate reserves, but they are being depleted.
Throughout the debate, hon. Members have spoken about the effect of all that on falling police numbers. There are severe consequences for operational duties. Liberal Democrat Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington referred to the problems of vandalism and rowdy behaviour. All that contributes to the fear of crime and lawlessness within our communities, which, whatever arguments one has about the most effective deployment of officers, can be tackled only by the public seeing the police on their streets.
There is no better illustration of the problems facing the Metropolitan police than the policing of the forthcoming millennium celebrations, which will impose vast demands on the police service, particularly in London, where a large part of the celebrations will be concentrated. Can the Minister tell us where there is provision for all that in the budget? Where is the resource to ensure that, towards the end of the financial year, there will be adequate money to pay for adequate policing?
Overall, we can conclude from the debate that Londoners are getting a good deal from the Metropolitan police service, but not from the Government. In our debate on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to what the Police Federation said when the budget for policing in the year ahead was first announced. Let me share with the House one or two other comments by the federation, which sum up what we feel about the budget for policing in this country.
The Police Federation's press notice, under the signature of its chairman, Fred Broughton, stated:
The public deserve a police service which is properly maintained but, with this budget, they are being short changed.
It continued:
Maintaining proper levels of police cover is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and the public have a right to be served better".
We agree. Although that was said about the police service across the country, it is especially true of policing in London. Londoners will rightly feel let down. They will gleefully take the opportunity to show how they feel when the Greater London Assembly elections are held in just over a year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) not just on winning the chance to hold the debate, but on winning it this week, which is an important week for the Metropolitan police.
I am sure that the House will join me in sending our best wishes to the Commissioner who, as hon. Members probably know, is in hospital. We hope that he is recovering well.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on the measured way in which he opened the debate. The subject sometimes raises emotions, but I hope that we can deal with it in a constructive and sensible way. We share the desire for our police service in London to operate effectively and to meet the needs of Londoners.
Expenditure on the Metropolitan police is substantial public expenditure. It is important to all of us who live and work in London, because the money spent represents a huge investment in the safety of us all. As hon. Members have mentioned, London has unique capital city requirements which place special policing demands on the Met, who also have national functions that make them a special police service.
It is worth reminding ourselves, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did, of the size of the area for which the Metropolitan police are responsible, and their numbers: 20 per cent. of police officers in the whole of England and Wales are in London. The force is unique in the country, which brings further demands in terms of resources and the nature of policing.
Yesterday, the Commissioner's annual policing plan was published, together with the efficiency plan. This is the first time that an efficiency plan has been produced. Ambitious targets are set out. It is important that the two plans are seen together, because efficiency gains will contribute to more effective policing.
The Government are committed to providing the right level of financial support to ensure that the Metropolitan police can deliver their policing objectives. The House will recall that, in December 1998, the Home Secretary announced a £28.8 million cash boost for the force. That increase means that the funding available to the police for tackling crime and disorder across the capital will rise by 1.7 per cent, from £1.715 billion in 1998–99 to £1.744 billion in 1999–2000. I therefore do not accept that there is a budget shortfall.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is, of course, right about the figures, but a 1.7 per cent. increase is clearly below the rate of inflation. To avoid further debate on matters of fact, can she put it on the record, first, that in the coming year there will be a real-terms cut in the budget of the Met, and secondly, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) correctly pointed out, that the proportion of the budget coming from the precepted London ratepayers is going up, at the same time as, in real terms, the subsidy from the Government is going down?

Mr. Kate Hoey: I shall go on to deal with the precept, as hon. Members need some accurate information. I do not accept that there is a budget shortfall. As I said, the 1.7 per cent. increase for this year brings the total to £1.744 billion. In addition to that, there is the money

from the precept. If we deal with that, hon. Members will see that the overall increase for the Met is larger than for forces in some other parts of the country. There is not a cut, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests. I shall develop the point further, and he can respond later.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton spoke about the problems associated with the millennium. We recognise the special needs of London, and we allocate the special grant each year. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said—he is, I think, the only Member present who is from outside London—some people outside London do not like that. The special payment was raised last year, and this year it has been raised again from £151 million to £176 million, specifically to deal with the Met's national and Londonwide functions.
We must retain public confidence in policing. Even with the special payment, the overall spending increase for the Met is in line with the rest of the country. They have not received preferential treatment, but they have not been penalised, taking into account their extra tasks. The special payment is 100 per cent. Home Office grant. It is not charged to London taxpayers or the taxpayers of Kingston.
The council tax payer in London is not paying for the extra services that the Metropolitan police must provide, such as anti-terrorist duties, protection for royalty, VIPs, and the policing of special events such as lobbies of Parliament, pickets and rallies. Within the special grant this year, there should be sufficient funding for the millennium celebrations to be adequately policed.
The new funding that we have given the Met is the first instalment of the extra £1.24 billion pledged to the police over the next three years in the comprehensive spending review. It takes into account a 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency improvement target, which we set as part of the CSR settlement.
As has been said, funding for the Met is not just a matter of central Government funding. The receiver for the Metropolitan police has estimated that net revenue expenditure, which includes the precepted amount for 1999–2000, will be £1.88 billion. That produces an increase of about 3 per cent. in the Met's budget over 1998–99, and brings it broadly in line with the national increase. The budget balances the Commissioner's need for increased resources with the interests of council tax payers in containing their contributions.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned the precept. It is important to consider what London council tax payers will pay for policing next year. For band D properties, the cost will be £77.44 for the year, which is an increase of less than 60p a month over 1998–99, and the total annual charge is less than the cost of a television licence or a road fund licence for a car.
I appreciate that Opposition Members in particular usually point out figures to make things look disadvantageous to the Government, but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey should ask people whether they are prepared to pay that extra 60p a month. He said that people never tell him that they want local


police stations to close and police numbers to be reduced. I am absolutely certain that, when those figures were spelt out, they would say that they would pay the extra money.

Mr. Hughes: As I said in my speech, I am sure that the people of London are happy to make a contribution; I have never heard a protest.
The Minister has helpfully given the figures. First, if she can, will she tell us how the 1.7 per cent. increase from the Government to the Met for the coming year compares with the percentages for other police services? Is the Met at the bottom of the league table, in the middle or at the top? Secondly, what percentage increase in the precept can Londoners expect and how does it compare with increases for other police service precept payers around England?

Mr. Kate Hoey: I shall try to give those figures before the end of my speech, but I should add that, in the Metropolitan police district, the proportion of policing spending raised from estimated council tax in 1998–99 is 12.5 per cent. That is the ninth lowest proportion across all police authorities in England and well below the English average of 14.5 per cent. We are not being unreasonable by asking London council tax payers to contribute a little more for policing next year.
To look at the Metropolitan police in a different context, according to the latest figures from the Audit Commission, expenditure on policing per head of population in the Met area is £218.30, which is double the national average of slightly more than £114. Clearly a great deal of money is going into the police per head of population. We have to be sure that it is being spent in the best possible way on reducing crime and the fear of crime, which is what the police are for and which makes people feel much safer.
I want to answer a couple of points before I go on to discuss efficiency. The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Kingston and Surbiton raised the potential closure of police stations, which arouses great emotions, especially in the immediate vicinity of such stations. Police stations are a visible form of reassurance for the public, but last week's Audit Commission report on the police estate found that changes in crime patterns and the increasing use of problem-solving and intelligence-led policing methods, rather than random policing, mean that some police stations are unsuitable for policing in the 1990s. We must accept that. Police forces must review their estate, because, ultimately, better estate management can serve the public better.
When police stations are being threatened with closure, it is essential that the reasons why such a step might be taken are discussed fully, not only with community policing consultative groups, but with the local people. The police must be able to justify a closure, not only for operational reasons, but for reasons that will reassure people that taking such a step will help to make policing better. I know that it is extremely difficult to make those arguments because I have had such cases in my constituency, but Members of Parliament sometimes have to face the fact that difficult steps must be taken in their own constituency and that it is right, although not easy, to argue for them to be taken.
The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the national police funding formula. The hon. Member for

Twickenham, who has had to leave—to support the new deal in his constituency, I hope—said that he was not sure whether he understood the formula. It would be very dishonest of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that I understand it completely, but one or two people in the Home Office truly understand this difficult and complicated way of working out how much money police forces throughout the country receive.
We inherited the formula from the previous Government. We have refined it, as did the previous Government, but it is not perfect. We have commissioned some independent research to examine whether there are additional costs in policing inner-city urban areas that are not reflected in the formula. All hon. Members who represent inner-city areas well know the particular difficulties with policing those areas. We hope that the research will come up with conclusions that we can use constructively. Although there will never be a formula that satisfies everyone, we have to try continually to make improvements.
Recruitment and retention are clearly important because the Met are an ageing force—we must attract new, younger people. In 1998, for the first time in five years, the Met advertised nationally for recruits and Hendon is being used to capacity. I urge all London Members of Parliament to visit Hendon to see the enormous changes that are taking place in police training; a lot of what came out of the Macpherson report is being worked on at Hendon and such a visit would be useful.
We are trying to do more about retention. We want to retain officers, because it is a pity to train them up only for them to leave the force early. Retention has a lot to do with morale and the police feeling that they have the support of the community, and we have to work on that quickly.
Pensions are a problem which faced the previous Government and face this Government. No Government would want to face up to the huge long-term costs of the pensions shortfall, but a consultation document was published last March and firm proposals will be introduced soon. We are considering the costs and benefits of introducing a funded pensions scheme for new entrants, but that will not be a panacea. We need to get this right and look ahead, although Governments always tend to look at the present rather than the future. This year, however, we recognised the increased burden of police pensions and increased to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of police revenue funding allocated on the basis of police pension commitments.
Setting budgets is not about consistently looking for increases in cash; it is also about achieving more and better with available resources, and 1999–2000 is the first year in which we have required forces to produce efficiency plans. I recommend that all hon. Members read the Met's efficiency plan. Hon. Members may have pressed for more cash to be injected into policing, but we have taken positive action to make sure that everything we invest in our police delivers more efficient and effective police services.
Perhaps it is time to treat our police as a public service. In common with any other public service, policing is about service delivery. We are asking no more of the police than the previous Administration sought from other


public services, such as the health service. We intend to introduce best value and to ensure that everything that the Met do—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the Minister that time is up.

Noise Levels (Work)

Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to have secured the debate because, although this may not be the sexiest of subjects, tens of thousands of workers are exposed to excessive noise levels every day. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield(Mr. Meale), is to respond. I know that before becoming a Member of Parliament he worked in industry, and that at one point he was a workers safety representative. He would have been appointed under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, which were introduced by a Labour Government. In the ensuing years, the safety of British workers improved, but evidence suggests that in the late 1980s and 1990s the working environment deteriorated in many establishments.
According to the current Health and Safety Executive estimates, 1.3 million workers are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 decibels. That is the threshold—any increase will affect hearing. The connection between noise and hearing loss is well documented. According to an earlier HSE study of self-reported working conditions, 170,000 workers suffered from some form of deafness, such as dullness of hearing or tinnitus—ringing in the ears.
I think that anyone would find those figures alarming, and they prompted the Royal National Institute for Deaf people and the Trades Union Congress to act. They concluded that there had been insufficient compliance with the regulations, and that the regulations had not been applied properly, perhaps because of a lack of awareness among employers. The guidance accompanying the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 makes it clear that all hearing loss caused by exposure to noise is preventable.
When the all-party parliamentary occupational safety and health group, which I chair, met on 16 March, it heard evidence from manufacturers of personal protective equipment, and some interesting statistics were given. For instance, 300 million earplugs are used each year in the European Union. In Germany, the figure is 85 million, and in the UK it is 65 million. Interestingly, although Sweden has a much smaller population, it uses 2.5 times as many earplugs as the UK. The man who made the presentation said that he thought that that was due to an increasing awareness resulting from teaching in Swedish schools, which motivated young people to protect their hearing with earplugs and similar equipment rather than merely complying with the law.
The RNID and the TUC decided to join forces and conduct a survey of UK industry. They issued 6,000 questionnaires, and the replies resulted in a report entitled "Indecent Exposure". The findings confirmed the worst fears of both bodies. Nearly a quarter of respondents reported listening to uncomfortably loud sounds for more than four hours a day. Nearly one in five construction workers, more than one in 10 manufacturing workers, and a number of oil rig workers said that they were exposed to such sounds for more than eight hours a day. A third of respondents said that their tasks left them with dull hearing, and 16 per cent. of those said that the dullness of


hearing continued after work. Twenty per cent. of respondents reported that their tasks left them with ringing or rushing noises in their ears or heads for at least five minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those findings seriously.
The survey also found that new workers, as well as those in the traditional industries, risked hearing loss. That confirmed earlier research—which my hon. Friend may well have seen—by the Labour Research Department, which found that workers in call centres, couriers and workers in restaurants were at risk. The police are also at risk, as they now use phonac devices that fit into the ear canal and pipe noise directly into the ear. The noise to which those newer workers are exposed comes from a different source: it is not the ambient noise with which the 1989 regulations were intended to deal.
Alarmingly, the RNID and the TUC found that people working in call centres were given no advice about the risk to their hearing, and that none had been given any hearing tests—although, as things stand, tens of thousands of people are likely to become deaf in their 20s.
"Indecent Exposure" is not just about statistics. Its aim was to show the impact that deafness has on people's lives, and, to that end, a number of case studies were conducted. I shall refer to a couple of those, but the Minister and his officials can examine them at their leisure. One is the case of a young woman working in a call centre. Most names are published in the studies, but this person wanted to remain anonymous. She does a 40-hour week at a centre, working eight hours per day.
Every aspect of that lady's job was monitored, from her toilet breaks to the time it was taking to deal with calls coming in. The one thing that was not monitored was her hearing. She talked of being subjected to a high-pitched bleep through her headphones whenever new calls came in; it told her that someone was in the stack waiting to be put through. There was much background noise: 80 to 100 people were working in the call centre. Consequently, the sound coming through the headphones needed to be turned up, so that she could understand the message.
After a while, that lady began to notice that she had hearing loss. She went for a hearing test and it was diagnosed that she had a 10 decibel hearing loss. She went back to work and, within five years, she found that her hearing was deteriorating further and that she was having trouble understanding some of the messages, so she went to her medical adviser for further diagnosis and was found to have a 20 decibel hearing loss. That young lady is 29 years old and has been told that she will have to wear a hearing aid.
The name of the person involved in the other case is in the study "Indecent Exposure". She is a 48-year-old retired police officer. She had to retire because of hearing loss that was later ascertained to have been caused by the phonac device that she used in her ear. Although it was agreed that she was incapacitated to work in the police force, she had to fight in the courts to establish that her incapacity was the result of an injury at work. When the phonac device was tested for the court case, it was found to emit noise levels of 100 decibels.
One theme runs throughout all the case studies: people were afraid to raise the matter with their employer. That says a lot about the need for robust fairness at work

legislation. People were afraid for their jobs and afraid to raise the fact that they were working in conditions that were endangering their hearing.
What can be done? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind five points. First, the 1989 regulations, which deal with ambient noise, but are nevertheless important, need to be enforced. We need to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive takes on board the need to enforce them. Secondly, will my hon. Friend request that the Health and Safety Executive provides guidance on the use of earphones and other devices that pipe noise directly into the ear?
Thirdly, will the Minister call for more research to find out the ways in which noise that is piped directly into the ear affects hearing loss? I think that if noise is piped directly into the ear, hearing loss occurs more quickly. Fourthly, such research could uncover an engineering solution to the problem. It is an issue which needs to be looked at. If he asks the Health and Safety Executive to undertake research, will he ask it to look particularly for an engineering solution to the problem?
Finally, the disease is prescribed, but the prescription is not wide enough to cover new industries. It needs widening. We need to involve the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I realise that that is not within the Minister's remit, but I hope that he will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Department of Social Security because there is a need to look at that aspect.
Although much of traditional industry has disappeared or radically changed, as was shown by the figures that were produced by the Health and Safety Executive, and particularly by the findings of the report "Indecent Exposure", noise at work is still a big problem. Thousands of call centre workers in their 20s could lose their hearing, as could many police officers and couriers, another group of workers who use earphones. They were also referred to in the report.
The message that needs to go from the debate is that employers should comply with their duties to protect their staff, that the Health and Safety Executive needs to enforce the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and that it needs to undertake more research into the matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate, which is aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with exposure to loud noise at work. He has campaigned on health and safety matters since the first day he was in this place. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. Before coming here, he spent most of his working life doing exactly the same. His is a voice worth listening to in every respect.
It is timely to discuss health and safety issues such as noise at work, particularly as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Health and Safety Executive, which was established following the Robens report. I am familiar with the RNID-TUC report entitled "Indecent Exposure". It contains much with which I agree, so I add my support to the report and to the RNID campaign on noise at work. I am sure that many other hon. Members will support the report, including my hon. Friend the


Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is also deeply involved in investigating noise issues. I apologise sincerely for not being able to attend a recent event—I think that it was last week—to highlight all the problems concerning deafness and to launch the report. That was because of a prior engagement.
Hearing loss is a terrible thing. Deafness or partial hearing has a major effect on the quality of life of those affected by it. Some people lose their hearing as they grow older, but the hearing of far too many people becomes impaired due to a working environment that is plainly too noisy.
Many people do not understand how big the problem is, but last night, yet again, I experienced the problems that are caused by deafness. Not many people in this place know that my hearing is below 50 per cent. in both ears. I go through life with people around me becoming slightly amused because I do not seem to have heard, or noted something that they have said. That is a dilemma. It is a problem which many people experience. Having said that, in my profession such an ailment can sometimes be an advantage. It is probably the only profession where that is so.
Noise-induced hearing loss that is caused at work is a serious and significant occupational health problem. Although many cases result from exposure before current legal controls were in place, too many people at work are still potentially at risk. Exposure levels for many workers remain considerable. Research by the Health and Safety Executive in "Self-reported work-related illness in 1995: results of a household survey", which was published in 1998, suggests that as many as 170,000 people in Great Britain consider that they suffer from a hearing or ear problem that is caused or made worse by their work.
The Health and Safety Executive estimates that about 1.3 million people, in 88,000 workplaces, continue to be exposed to damaging noise levels. The "2 m rule" is simple—if people less than 2 m away find it difficult to hear one speaking, there may be a noise problem. Exposure to loud noise at work is covered by legal controls and guidance. I believe that there is no excuse for anyone's hearing to be impaired because of loud noise at work. A range of legislation deals with noise at work and with making noisy machinery quieter.
As my hon. Friend said, the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 are the mainstay in tackling noise problems at work. The regulations implement a European Union directive, so that legal controls on noise are common across the European Union. The regulations require employers to reduce noise risk to the lowest reasonable and practical level, and to take specific actions at certain noise levels. The actions include reducing noise, conducting noise assessments, providing information and training for employees, and providing personal ear protection when appropriate. The action levels have been determined on the basis of dealing with practical risk and cost.
The regulations apply also to all people at work in Great Britain who are exposed to loud noise, except on ships at sea and on aircraft that are taxiing or in flight. Last year, the regulations were extended to cover the offshore industry. Therefore, the regulations cover all the industries that we associate with noise, such as foundries

or engineering businesses. Unfortunately, as yet they do not cover this place or places like it, although such places are covered by other protection.
The regulations also cover the noisiest workplaces, such as call centres and those in the leisure industry. All employees in those industries are protected by the legislation, and it is the job of employers in those industries to ensure that the legislation is properly applied. There are legal duties also on manufacturers and suppliers of noisy equipment to reduce noise levels and to provide the information to buyers.
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 specifically require manufacturers to reduce noise from new machinery and to provide noise data. Such action is important, as one of the main ways—undoubtedly the best way—of reducing exposure to noise is to reduce the noise at source. As one might expect, design safety is good safety. I note my hon. Friend's point that engineering solutions to noise are the best way forward. I shall inquire into whether work should be done on the matters that he mentioned.
Rest breaks from noisy areas are, as my hon. Friend said, an important part of dealing with noise. The Health and Safety Executive recommends rest breaks, which can be good in helping employees to recuperate and in providing a rest from wearing ear protection.
Noise levels have to be averaged over an eight-hour period. The longer people have to work, the lower are the levels of noise to which they are allowed to be exposed. The legal requirements, if followed, would substantially reduce the risk of hearing loss. I reiterate that it is for employers to apply the regulations, and that the Health and Safety Executive will take appropriate action to ensure that they do just that.
We all, however, have a responsibility to recognise noisy workplaces and to work together to protect people's hearing. We have to be aware particularly of people with hearing difficulties, who may be more vulnerable in the workplace and have to be managed with additional care.
My hon. Friend will know that, shortly after the Government took office, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to re-examine the issue of occupational deafness and to devise new ways of minimising the incidence of hearing loss. I tell my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Executive will continue to target noise at work as one of its priorities, and that it has developed a long-term strategy to tackle the problem. The Government support that strategy—which is to increase awareness of the risks to health; to ensure compliance with current requirements, and to prosecute when appropriate; to offer practical advice on ways of reducing noise levels; and to control exposure at the place of work.
The Health and Safety Executive has been pursuing that strategy since 1995, as part of its "Good Health is Good Business" campaign. The campaign now has renewed impetus, aided by the significant new resources that the Government have invested in the Health and Safety Executive. I assure my hon. Friend that noise will continue to be highlighted in the planned next phase of the campaign.
My hon. Friend also mentioned health and safety guidance. HSE guidance on noise includes revised guidance on legislation, entitled "Reducing Noise at Work", which was published last year. A Health and Safety Executive book, entitled "Sound Solutions",


includes 60 case studies of real examples from industry of how successful noise-reduction methods have been introduced. A range of free leaflets on noise, for both employers and employees, is available.
Securing compliance with the law is crucial. The HSE's long-term strategy aims to improve the quality of risk assessment of noise by employers. Risk assessment will be stressed by inspectors. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have made more resources available to the Health and Safety Executive—so that there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law, such as that on noise, and so that inspectors promote more effective control of exposure to noise by encouraging the introduction of quieter machines or processes and by improving compliance with the supply-side legislation. Inspectors will also promote the effective use of purchasing policies and application of control measures. The correct use of ear protection is vital. Employees, too, have responsibilities to protect themselves by complying with notices and wearing ear protectors.
The aim of my reply to the debate has been to reassure the House of the Government's commitment to tackle noise at work. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some comfort on the concerns that he expressed. Three specific matters seemed to trouble him—in what he has described as the new sectors of the economy—and I should like to say a little about each of them.
First, the "Indecent Exposure" report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, rightly emphasises the worries of those who are employed in call centres about the risk to their hearing. A study is in hand to identify the health and safety aspects, including noise hazards, of working in call centres. The results of the study will inform decisions by the Health and Safety Executive on what action has to be taken.
Secondly, the problems encountered by motorcycle couriers are similar to those of people working in call centres, as both jobs involve using communication headsets or ear pieces. Previous Health and Safety Executive research has drawn attention to the problem, and, in its "Reducing Noise at Work" guidance, there is general advice on measuring noise exposure to workers wearing headsets or ear pieces. There is also the prospect of a new international standard on such exposure.
My hon. Friend's third concern was the effect of excessive noise on employees working in pubs and clubs. He will be aware that I take a personal interest in the issue, particularly as it affects those working in areas in which large numbers of people gather. The Health and Safety Executive has completed some research on the matter, and plans are well advanced for a study of the leisure industry to discover more about real noise levels for those working in pubs and clubs. That research, too, will inform the HSE on what action has to be taken to combat the problem. Such initiatives are important.
I make it clear that the Government are not complacent about noisy workplaces. There is legislation to tackle the problem of noise at work, and there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law. The Government and the Health and Safety Executive will do all that we can to reduce noise-induced hearing loss, and we intend to work closely with the RNID and the TUC to that end.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asked for on the three or four matters on which he asked for further information and research. I should like again to pay tribute to him. His history of dealing with an important subject should be a lesson to us all—and one which hon. Members, both old and new, should follow if they can.

Teenage Pregnancy

1 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I want to address a problem that I consider to be a national scandal—teenage pregnancy. Many hon. Members will have heard on Radio 4 this morning about the Childline report which states that more 14 and 15-year-old girls call in about pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy than about any other issue. I am well aware that the Government have promised a review on the subject. It was promised last October, but it has not yet been produced. I am sure that we shall now be told that it will be published very soon, but I applied for today's debate none the less because I am sick of promises. I want some firm commitments. Twelve or 18 months is long enough to wait. How much longer will it be?
In 1997—the last year for which I have figures—95,000 teenagers became pregnant. Of those, 8,300 were under 16. A total of 33,381 of those girls had abortions. It is a huge tragedy that 95,000 young lives were ruined in some way and 62,000 babies were born to mothers most of whom were still at school and unable to support them.
It is even more shaming that the United Kingdom is top of the league in Europe for teenage pregnancies. In the most recent population trends published by the Office for National Statistics, the United Kingdom was top in respect of births per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 19. Our current rate is 30 per 1,000 girls. In Denmark, the figure is only eight per 1,000 girls and in the Netherlands only four girls in 1,000 become pregnant.
Thirty years ago, there were 50 pregnancies per 1,000 girls, so the figure has fallen. But in Denmark 30 years ago the figure was also 50 per 1,000, and that country has managed to reduce teenage pregnancies to eight per 1,000 girls. As I said, the incidence of teenage pregnancy is a national scandal and I am ashamed that it is happening in my country.
Let us look at the reasons. There is no doubt that we live in a society that flaunts sex at every available opportunity. Cars, chocolate bars, deodorants—you name it—are frequently sold using sexual images. Newspapers, magazines and television programmes are full of the antics of Presidents, royalty, pop stars and, dare I say it, some hon. Members. Films, plays and television shows all contain sexual activity. It is everywhere. Even Cardinal Hume has noticed. At the weekend he declared that
society is obsessed with sex and falling apart because of it.
I am inclined to agree with him, but there is no turning the clock back. We are approaching the 21st century. Society has changed. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
Is it any wonder that, surrounded by sexual images, young people join in? They do not want to be left out of the excitement. Nobody on television is worried about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases or AIDS, so why should they worry? When they add to the brew copious amounts of alcohol on Friday and Saturday nights, they are away.
All that is common to other European countries. So why do so many more teenagers get pregnant in the United Kingdom? Are parental attitudes or education to

blame? Unless we provide proper sex education and services that give teenagers a balanced message and counteract the excitement factor, things will never change.
Let us get rid of one myth before we progress any further. I have heard it said so often—it was said again on the radio this morning—that young girls get pregnant so that they can claim benefit and get council flats. In fact, the majority of teenage mothers have no idea about housing or benefits before they get pregnant. There is no need to take my word for it; the Policy Studies Institute has conducted several studies on the subject. Once a teenage mother has a baby or two, however, we have to do something about her housing, looking after her babies and giving her benefit.
Let us dispel another myth—that teenagers get pregnant because of sex education, contraception and abortion advice. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I hoped would be here today said during last Sunday's "On the Record" that
the rise in teenage pregnancies in this country has gone hand-in-hand with increased sex education and family planning advice.
I respect the right hon. Lady. She is honest and resolute in her views, but she is wrong on this issue.
Despite the best efforts of me and my colleagues in the national health service, the Conservatives cut family planning clinics by half countrywide. We all know that general practitioners became overburdened and the number of school nurses was severely reduced. I cannot find the national figure, but in Cambridge, for example, not only are there no school nurses, but there are no health visitors either. What does the Minister intend to do about Cambridge?
According to Childline, the majority of the 7,000 youngsters who had rung in about pregnancy-related issues said that they were not aware of having received any sex education at school.
Sex education still remains at the whim of school governors. Some education authorities and schools do their best, but, countrywide, sex education is scanty, rarely repeated and hardly ever linked to the essential advice to teenagers about where to go for advice on sexual matters, contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. The link between education and advice on where to find services has been highlighted in many studies on the issue.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I agree with the hon. Lady that family planning units are a vital part of our services to the community and I deplore the fact that they were run down. Does she agree that the Government should encourage initiatives such as that between Boots the chemist and the local health authority in Glasgow, whereby youngsters can go into Boots and get advice?

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I entirely agree. In fact, I was about to mention the experiment that Boots conducted in Glasgow. Incidentally, it has been very successful and many young people have used the service. We need more such projects.
Other European countries provide more than adequate family planning and sexual health services and take a refreshingly frank and objective approach to the issue. Rates of teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands and


Denmark are a fraction of ours. Proper sex education and services are provided free of charge and advertised. People discuss matters more frankly.
In the United Kingdom, we are still bound by Victorian values such as, "Do as I say, not as I do" and, "These things must not be discussed with young people." We must educate ourselves to talk to children and encourage peer group speak-easy projects—a concept of which the Minister is aware—for children and for parents who find it difficult to talk to their children about such matters.
Today, I am calling on the Government to include several measures in their review, whenever it is published. First, there should be a compulsion on schools to deliver sex education from the beginning of primary school to school leaving age as part of the national curriculum. Sex education needs to be repeated. It is no good having a one-off lesson from the shy biology mistress or the local doctor; the message must be repeated and changed appropriately as children get older. It must be regularly assessed by the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Employment. That must be linked with proper provision of family planning, abortion and STD services for young people, via local family planning services and perhaps school nurses.
The irony is that when we need those services the most, they have been cut. Responsibility for them will lie with primary care groups. That is another concern. Who will ensure the provision of adequate family planning and youth counselling services if the primary care groups are to be so overstretched? In the absence of such services, trained pharmacists and the high street outlets that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) mentioned need to come into the equation.
To improve accessibility, we must deregulate some methods of contraception. Emergency contraception, which I spoke about in the House some months ago, must be made available when it is needed. It is needed in emergencies and should be as readily available as condoms. It should not be necessary to make an appointment to see a general practitioner to get emergency contraception.
Will the Minister assure us that she will support people such as Viv Crouch, the school nurse in Bath who has set up an advisory service in her school and directs young people to the right provision of services? The Minister should also support the Boots clinic in Glasgow. Those are examples of people and businesses taking the initiative. That must become more widespread. Such initiatives are needed in every city.
Young people need readily available, confidential, anonymous and non-judgmental advice from the time of their first sexual experiences. Let us stop pretending that young people do not or should not have sex. They do. As I have said, times have changed. I am sorry about that in many ways, but that is the way it is. People do not have to start so young, however. In the Netherlands, the average age at which young people start having sex is much older than in the United Kingdom and the provision of services there is much better. From 30 years' experience, I know that the more education—general and sexual—and the more advice and medical help teenagers can get, the more likely they are to delay their first sexual intercourse and the less likely they are to become pregnant.
Education is probably the main reason why the UK compares so badly with its European counterparts. We have a higher proportion of badly educated young people from unstable backgrounds. That situation is repeated from generation to generation. Putting teenage mothers into hostels and preaching at them will not help, but if we give them opportunities to return to education by providing creche facilities—incidentally, when are we going to get creche facilities for all the mothers in the House of Commons?—and proper support for their babies, we may prevent those babies from making the same mistakes when they grow up and stop them repeating the cycle.
Let us use the media to sell the messages that we want young people to hear. We see and hear about sex every day on our televisions, but when did any of us last see an advertisement on the box for emergency contraception, condoms or an abortion service? They never appear. It happens elsewhere in Europe; why not here?
Finally, will the Government tackle the anti lobby head-on, for the sake of our young people? Will they refuse to let uninformed media headlines and organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, and Life, preach, dictate and utter their hypocrisies? Will the Government spin for the benefit of young people?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the hon. Lady aware that SPUC campaigns outside Boots in Glasgow every week, giving out grossly misleading leaflets that accuse Boots of breaking the law? That is true neither of Boots nor of the community and mental health service, which has been co-operating with it.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am well aware of what is happening at Boots in Glasgow. I hope to go there in April to see for myself. Organisations such as SPUC are disgraceful. They produce inaccurate and misleading information, and I have been the target of some of their campaigns.
The Government must tackle that lobby head-on and spin on behalf of our young people. Better, more honest sex education and contraception provision will bring down the teenage pregnancy rate, as it has in other European countries. While the Government have been thinking about the issue, tens of thousands of teenagers have had unwanted pregnancies. About 100,000 pregnancies have occurred, with perhaps 60,000 or 70,000 babies being born as a result. That represents a huge number of broken lives and an awful lot of misery, unhappiness and potential trouble for the future.
When will we have the review? Can the Minister assure us that it will contain the action for which so many agencies are calling? We have heard in recent months from the Family Planning Association, the Brooke Advisory Centre, the Health Education Authority and the Sex Education Forum. This morning, Childline produced a report that has aptly highlighted the issue for us. Those organisations have the experience. Have the Government listened? They know what must be done.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate, on her speech and on her record as a campaigner for what is right on this issue.
We do not do well by our teenage parents. As the hon. Lady has said, our rates are four times higher than in France, twice as high as in Germany and seven times as high as in the Netherlands. More teenagers become pregnant in this country than anywhere else in western Europe. That is why the Prime Minister asked the social exclusion unit to report to him on ways to reduce teenage conceptions and support vulnerable teenage parents to break the cycle of exclusion that the situation almost inevitably brings for them and their babies.
I assure the hon. Lady that the report of the social exclusion unit will be submitted to the Prime Minister shortly and will be published within the next two months or so. The exercise has been exhaustive, involving wide consultation, with the clear purpose of seeking practical solutions and building a consensus for the action that the Government must lead. Action must be guided not by myth or prejudice, but by fact and the best available evidence of what works.
Let us look briefly at what happens to young women who become teenage mothers. Half the under-16s who become pregnant will have an abortion. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer trouble with their pregnancy and birth and are much more likely to experience post-natal depression than older mothers. The infant mortality rate for babies of teenage mothers is more than 50 per cent. higher than the national average. The prospects in later life are poor, too. Teenage mothers and their children are more likely to live on benefits and to live on them for longer than their peers. As the hon. Lady made clear, there is no evidence beyond anecdote—which is easily deployed—that the benefit system acts as a direct incentive to any young woman to become pregnant.
The social exclusion unit's forthcoming report will look at the prevention of teenage pregnancy and the support necessary for teenage parents and their children. We already have a good idea of which young women are most at risk of becoming pregnant too early. Often, they have low educational attainment; their families have had financial problems; they have had emotional problems; their mothers were probably teenage mothers; and they wanted to be a young mother. Young women with those characteristics are 19 times more likely to become teenage mothers than young women with none of them.

Mr. Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the city of Hull has the highest rate of pregnancies among 13 to 15-year-olds in the country, and one of the highest rates in western Europe. However, we managed to get a multi-agency approach to the problem only when we were allocated a health action zone. Will she ensure that the lessons learned in Hull are looked at closely and spread to other areas?

Ms Jowell: We will be delighted to learn from my hon. Friend's experience of tackling the problem in Hull. I hope that the implementing action following the social exclusion unit report will build on best practice and will make sure that that is spread as widely as possible.

Dr. Tonge: So far, the Minister has dealt with teenage mothers and their babies, and with what the Government

plan to do in future. I respect that, but will she refer to the measures that are necessary to prevent teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place?

Ms Jowell: I will deal with those points in the short time remaining.
Social exclusion is not only associated with teenage parenthood for young women: like teenage mothers, teenage fathers are likely to share characteristics such as low educational achievement, lack of qualifications and a family background of financial problems. Teenage boys and girls who have been in trouble with the police are more likely than their peers to become teenage parents. It was recently estimated that 25 per cent. of young offenders were also fathers.
Teenage pregnancy is a problem simply because teenage parents have to look after a baby when they are little more than children themselves. They are expected to cope with one of the most difficult things that any adult is asked to do—to raise and nurture a child—without the emotional and financial stability that come as part of adulthood. In many cases, teenage mothers are also lone mothers. That puts extra pressure on them in terms of child care, returning to education and future employment prospects—all issues which I hope that the social exclusion unit report will address.

Mrs. Gorman: Is the Minister aware that the Childline report said that more than half of the 7,800 young girls who called over the past two years were worried and wanted emergency help? Is she aware that it is difficult for them to find that help, and that many accident and emergency units refuse to give emergency contraception? Does she agree that the Government should do more to examine the opportunities so that young, terrified girls can get a friendly helping hand and emergency contraception?

Ms Jowell: Clearly, in an ideal world, young girls who are little more than children would not be having sexual relations. They have sexual relations for some of the reasons that I have outlined. Given that about one in five girls under 16 are sexually active, it is important that they have access to advice and information. Where that does not come from their parents at home, it is important to have accessible agencies for young people to turn to for help—often in the kind of crisis identified by the Childline research.
Teenage pregnancy is both a cause and a consequence of social exclusion. Many teenage mothers are care leavers, or have been excluded from school. For them, life was never going to be easy, and having a child too young makes it all the more difficult.
To have a long-term answer to the problem—and long-term success in reducing our rates of teenage pregnancy—we have to understand why the rates are so high in the first place. The short answer is that too many teenagers are having sex too young, and too many are having sex that is unprotected. That is one of the key reasons for our much higher rate of teenage pregnancy, and that marks us out from many European countries where the rate is lower.
Contraception rates for young people here are half the rates in the United States or in a number of European countries. The Childline research may shed some light on precisely the kind of problems that we must address.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jowell: No, I will not. If I do, I will not have a chance to finish dealing with the points that have been raised.
We know that young people believe that they are immortal, and that is why there is such a clear link between the risks that young people take in terms of unprotected sex, smoking, alcohol, drugs and even dangerous driving. More than 90,000 teenagers become pregnant every year, and nearly 500,000 sexually transmitted infections in teenagers are diagnosed every year.
The bottom line for our approach to teenage sex must be to ensure that teenagers are more aware of the risks attached to sex too early, and that they have the tools necessary to wait until they are adult and ready. It is important that those who do have sex have access to reliable contraception and advice to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection.
The Childline survey clearly revealed the pitiful ignorance among young people. No young person ever got pregnant just by knowing about sex, but young people are calling for the opportunity to be told not just about the biology of sex, but about relationships, responsibility and feelings. Young people have sex because of peer-group pressure; because they cannot think of a reason not to; because the future seems irrelevant. These are the real reasons that young people give for having under-age sex, with pregnancy as a consequence.
That is why looking at personal, social and health education in schools is important. School nurses have an important part to play, and we have seen a substantial increase in school nursing over the past three years.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are not these debates designed so that Back Benchers can put their points of view across? Is it right for the Minister to take up so much time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I understand the hon. Lady's point, but these are half-hour Adjournment debates, initiated by one hon. Member exclusively for the benefit of that Member to gain a ministerial reply. It is only by convention that anyone else can intervene in them. These debates are quite different from the one-and-a-half hour debates.

Ms Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have sought to answer the points raised in the debate, and I am trying to convey some of the complexity of tackling the problem so as to reduce not only rates of teenage pregnancy but the accompanying social exclusion. We are determined to put in place a practical programme, based on the evidence of what works, to build a consensus of support. We will lead that support from the House, engaging parents, teachers and young people up and down the country. That is where the solution lies.

Al Shifa Factory

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 20 August 1998, the United States launched a cruise missile attack on the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum. If what the factory made was so awful, why were there no air-locked doors, no guards and no night watchman? Why not accept the Sudanese request for an inspection team? After all, we are bombing Iraq in the cause of establishing inspection teams. Why no inspection for Sudan, which has asked for it?
The Americans, endorsed by Britain, made a serious error when they bombed and destroyed the factory. Chemical and Engineering News of 15 February said:
No trace of nerve gas precursor found at bombed Sudan plant".
The International Herald Tribune of 10 February gives details of negative tests by American scientists on soil and effluent at the factory site, and the Boston university soil analysis, under the direction of Thomas Tullius, one of the most distinguished men in the field, found nothing.
The New Yorker of October 1998 revealed that the Defence Intelligence Agency, the American joint chiefs of staff and even the Federal Bureau of Investigation were kept out of the picture by the Clinton White House on what was essentially a political decision to bomb Sudan.
As soon as I secured this debate, I drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the report of the Monterey institute of international studies. It says:
On August 14, CIA Director George Tenet reported that there was conclusive evidence justifying retaliatory attack against bin Laden. Cohen and Shelton briefed Clinton on a general plan for attacks and the President reportedly approved their plans that same day, including the strike on al Shifa. The four chiefs of staff of the armed forces, Attorney General Janet Reno and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis J. Freeh were not informed of the plan until one day prior to the scheduled attack.
Crucially, the report continues:
Reno reportedly urged delay to enable the FBI to compile more convincing evidence linking bin Laden both to the embassy bombings and to the facilities targeted for attack. Reno was apparently concerned that the available evidence was insufficient to meet standards of international law, but she was overruled.
To overrule one's own Attorney-General is a serious matter. The report continues:
Neither the Defence Intelligence Agency nor the FBI was involved in evaluating the data that led US officials to attack Shifa.
Sir Harold Kroto of the Royal Society of Chemistry, who has been rightly lauded by the Prime Minister, said to me that Bob Williams knows more about Empta—o-ethyl-methyl phosphoric acid—than anyone else in Europe, and Professor R. J. P. Williams, of Oxford university, has been my friend in this matter from the very beginning.
Professor Williams said:
In view of the fact that there is to be a debate in the House of Commons next Wednesday I wish to impress upon all Members of the House that there is now an opportunity for them to make sure that the government is open with us all concerning the attack on the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan by U. S. missiles. While it was excusable for the Prime Minister to respond last August by supporting U. S. officials, accepting claims from them which have never been made public, all subsequent and very detailed investigations of these claims have shown that none of them stand up to inspection.
I quoted earlier from the serious American press and from an American institute.
Professor Williams continued:
No chemicals of any kind which can be linked to nerve gas production have been found by new analyses of the soil around the factory. The factory was incapable of producing any such chemicals. The factory is owned by an innocent man, a Mr Idris. There are no links between the factory and ' any terrorist activities. All this evidence is readily available to Members of the House in leading American and British publications. While we all regret the deaths of over one hundred people in terrorist attacks on U. S. property in Africa it is not for the U. S. or us to take revenge by bombing a source of medical supplies for the sick in the Sudan. How many Sudanese have died as a consequence? Every time questions are asked in Parliament on these points the Prime Minister has replied evasively by reference to the early remarks of U. S. officials which everyone I know believes to have been mistaken. Now he is aware of the facts can not the Prime Minister apologise and attempt to persuade the U. S. government to do the same? Surely even politicians must be wise enough to realise that repeated dodging at Question Time in Parliament only reduces their stature while an apology for a mistake will be greeted as an act of statesmanship. Would it not be even better to send to the Sudan replacement medical supplies?
I, too, believe that people should apologise for mistakes when they know that they are mistakes.
Tom Carnaffin, the British engineer involved, wrote to the Prime Minister. He said:
I was the Technical Manager for Baaboud Trading and Shipping the main funders and builders of the … factory.
I am very distressed and angry at the persistent untruths and innuendoes levelled at the past and present owners of the factory and the true function and purpose of the said facility.
At my age and with my background as an engineer having worked in many countries throughout the world, I only believe what I can see with my own eyes, touch, measure or do the calculations for myself. Having worked on the Al Shifa factory from the digging of the foundations to the commissioning, living with the Baaboud family and being very closely associated with them even till now, I can say with my hand on my heart you do not know what you are talking about when you speak about this factory.
The capability of Sudan to provide simple medicines for its people has been damaged by this act of war. It is not sufficient for me to say please apologise. We must be constructive, and the Government should consider all the following moves.
The Government should apologise to the Government and people of Sudan for their endorsement of the destruction of a factory so vital to humanitarian development in Sudan. They should provide the affected communities in Sudan with emergency humanitarian relief in the form of drugs and medicines until the factory is rebuilt and recommences the manufacture of affordable pharmaceuticals.
The Government should support a United Nations weapons inspection of the Al Shifa factory and must take a prominent role in pushing for it at the United Nations Security Council. Should the United States Government continue to block international calls for a UN inspection of the site, the British Government should send a team from the Porton Down chemical and biological weapons establishment to conduct British tests.
The Government must rethink and reassess their attitude towards Sudan in the light of this and other American intelligence failures regarding Sudan. If the most powerful country in the world, with all the intelligence assets and technology at its disposal, cannot

get it right on this vital issue, how many other American claims, similarly echoed and supported, I fear, by the British Government, are flawed if not totally inaccurate?
The Government must bring pressure to bear on President Clinton to compensate the families of the dead and injured workers, to rebuild the factory and, in the meantime, to provide Sudan with humanitarian relief by replacing the vital drugs and medicines that were destroyed in the attack or whose supply has been interrupted by it. The Government should press the Clinton Administration to adopt a more constructive and less confrontational role in Sudan.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to reply to this debate, because he has a record of being deeply concerned about and doing good work towards improving relations with Sudan. I hope that those relations can be mended.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I know of the long interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has in this matter, and I also appreciate his final comments and the way in which he has addressed the issues. The context of the attack on Al Shifa is important to the House and it is right that we are reminded of it. It is important that we take every opportunity in the House unanimously to express our strong opposition to all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur. While my hon. Friend did not do that in his speech, I take it as read that he is a keen and active opponent of all terrorism and all sources of terrorism.
It is worth while reminding ourselves of the newspaper reports on the day after the attack on the Nairobi office block, which was the act of terrorism that led to the Al Shifa reaction. Those reports remind us of the horror of terrorism and the way in which it picks out wholly innocent individuals. More than 250 people were killed in Kenya on that occasion and not one of them had a political manifesto or grievance. They were innocent individuals, going about their business, leaving their homes in the morning and expecting to return in the evening. They were victims of a senseless, evil terrorist attack.
The Daily Telegraph, for example, carried a report on the office block next door to the building in which the bomb exploded. It said that it
took the brunt of the blast. It was reduced to rubble.
It continues by describing the victims:
Most of the victims were Kenyan office workers or passers-by, including the passengers of a bus, some of whom were decapitated by flying debris.
That was the nature of the attack, which was designed to injure, maim and kill innocent people. That was its sole purpose. The victims were people going about their everyday business, and there can be no possible political explanation to support such an attack. I know that every hon. Member would wish to condemn that act of terrorism, as is the case with every other act of terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow makes a


particular point about Al Shifa, but it is important to see that event in the context of our condemnation of terrorism, of bin Laden and all such activities.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with the condemnation of terrorism that my right hon. Friend the Minister makes, but did Al Shifa have anything to do with the attack?

Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted that I took that intervention. I agree with my hon. Friend's condemnation of terrorism and I shall come on to his other point. He has a very good record on human rights and of opposition to terrorism, and it is right that should go on record. In the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, we know about the evil of terrorism and it is right that the House should take every opportunity to remind others throughout the world that we condemn terrorism, and will take action to ensure that we can stand up against terrorists and those who organise and finance terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has raised questions about Al Shifa on many occasions. He had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only a week or so ago. I shall take this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, because he repeated answers that he has given since August last year. He said:
Last August, I gave my support to the United States action. It was action against international terrorists. The US told us at the time of the strike on Al Shifa that it had compelling evidence that the plant was being used for the production of chemical weapons materials.
My hon. Friend then asked the Prime Minister whether there was any hard evidence that VX precursors or any other chemical weapons-related compounds were manufactured at the Al Shifa plant. I shall remind the House of my right hon. Friend's reply:
The US was quite clear: it had compelling evidence that Al Shifa was involved in chemical weapons production. Terrorist organisations operating out of those places caused the death of more than 100 totally innocent people by acts of terrorism in Africa. The assault on Al Shifa was retaliation for that; no one was killed in it, but we gave a very clear signal—and I think the right one—to those who engage in international terrorism that we are prepared if necessary to take action in retaliation."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 364–5.]

Mr. Dalyell: If the Americans said that they had compelling evidence, why did their Attorney-General, Janet Reno, ask for a delay because she was not convinced? A country whose Attorney-General is not convinced would not appear to have compelling evidence. The truth is that there was deception by the Americans.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend's final accusation is a very strong one. The point he made about the Attorney-General comes, of course, from newspaper stories that are not founded on any evidence. The American Administration's position is that there was compelling evidence. If my hon. Friend reads the newspapers assiduously, he will recognise that the reporting is not always wholly accurate, especially in contexts in which it might be useful to establish differences between individual personalities within a Government. The American Administration's view is that they had compelling evidence.

Mr. Dalyell: That point did not come from newspaper reports. It is contained in the detailed report by the

Monterey institute of international studies, to which I referred the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the very moment that I knew that I had secured this Adjournment debate. That report is a serious document.

Mr. Fatchett: I will, almost on cue, refer to my hon. Friend's remarks about that document. It makes a number of telling comments that point in the contrary direction to those that my hon. Friend has used as evidence. For example, the document concludes that the eye witnesses are not chemical weapons specialists and
it is possible that their knowledge is incomplete.
My hon. Friend relied on a number of eye witnesses, including the British engineer who was involved in the construction of the plant, but that balanced report states that we cannot rely on the eye witnesses for evidence on technical details, because they are not chemical weapons specialists. The engineer has knowledge of engineering, but he does not necessarily have any knowledge of chemical weapons systems.
The report also mentions EMPTA and states:
There are several possible reasons why such a soil sample might test positive for EMPTA.
We should not forget that a positive test result was obtained. The Monterey report offers three possible reasons for that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow did not refer to them during his comments. The report states:
U. S. officials may be correct in their allegation that the VX precursor was produced at Shifa.
My hon. Friend has said that it is incumbent on the American Government to produce evidence for its conclusions, but he should be careful in putting his evidence together, because the report accepts that it is possible that US officials were right in thinking that the allegations that the VX precursor was produced at Al Shifa were well based. That could be one of the scientific conclusions from the soil samples and—although one has to be careful when reading a balanced report to recognise that it puts arguments in both directions—that is a telling counter allegation to the one that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Dalyell: As the engineer involved is sitting in the Strangers Gallery—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that no reference can be made to anyone who is not in the Chamber.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend or the science advisers to the Foreign Office be prepared to see the engineer, who set up the factory, in order to gain some idea of its capability, chemical or otherwise?

Mr. Fatchett: We should be happy to meet that individual. However, I return to the document's remarks on eyewitnesses to which I have just referred. With the best will in the world, I do not expect that the engineer would set himself up as a chemical weapons expert. However, we should be willing to talk to him about the engineering involved in the factory.
I refer my hon. Friend to the report's conclusion, on page 26, which says:
It remains possible that Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory may have been involved in some way in producing or storing the chemical compound EMPTA, which can be used in the production of VX nerve gas.
The evidence produced by my hon. Friend is, at best, chequered. It is certainly partial, and it is worth pausing to think about the conclusion drawn by the eminent people who wrote the report.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before the House, but the three crucial conclusions that I have outlined—the nature of eyewitness expertise, the fact that EMPTA was found there, meaning the American evidence and conclusions could be correct, and the fact that the report cannot conclude that Al Shifa was not used for storing or producing chemical weapons—seem to undermine his allegations.

Mr. Michael Trend: The Minister has outlined several qualifications from academic papers with which we are familiar. However, the essence of the question is a single soil sample that the Americans claim to have analysed, although some people have cast doubt on both the chemical analysis and the origin of the sample. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the British Government were satisfied that sample was genuine, and that the work done on it was properly conducted. Are the British Government simply taking the word of the American Administration? The Opposition believe that the action was almost certainly right, but that the factory was almost certainly the wrong one. It would be shameful if the Government have been led down a cul-de-sac by the American Government.

Mr. Fatchett: I am intrigued by the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking. The shadow Foreign Secretary supported the action taken by the United States. Does the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the position taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? If he is announcing a new departure in Conservative policy, he would be wiser not to do so during an Adjournment debate, and it would have been sensible of him to tell his right hon. and learned Friend. I know that the shadow Foreign Secretary is shortly to leave the Conservative Front Bench, and that the hon. Gentleman may be making a bid for the job, but he would be wiser not to announce his candidacy this way.

Mr. Trend: Rather than continuing the badinage, I shall repeat my important question. Are the British Government satisfied that the chemical analysis of the soil sample—the only bit of genuine evidence that justifies the bombing—adds up?

Mr. Fatchett: We are satisfied that the United States had conclusive evidence, and we have said so many times. I need to know whether the hon. Gentleman is dissociating the Conservative party from an attack on the causes of terrorism. Our debate is telling us a great deal about the Conservative party, whose spokesman is showing himself to be soft on terrorism. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will read the debate with great interest. It is about time that the Conservative party

offered support rather than reneging on its traditional position. I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman another opportunity to clarify his position if he wishes one.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I wanted to remind the House that this is his Adjournment debate. Interventions by Front-Bench Members are not customary in such a debate.

Mr. Dalyell: The obvious next step would be for the engineer to meet the Minister's advisers. On the question of what will be done about the Sudan, I meant what I said about the Minister's good record in trying to improve relations with that country. Whatever the arguments about Al Shifa, is there any way in which to give help to the Sudan, which has the most appalling malnutrition problems?

Mr. Fatchett: My points about the Monterey institute report have been fully made. I shall go on to the two further points that my hon. Friend has raised.
The next step is for Sudan to sign up to the chemical weapons convention, the verification regime of which would allow us to find out what is going on in Sudan and whether there is any truth in the allegation that there has been, and continues to be, production of chemical weapons. If Sudan has nothing to hide, it should sign in its own interests, in the interests of its neighbours and in the interests of the international community. We should all urge Sudan to take that step.
My hon. Friend referred kindly to my role in Sudan. During 1998, the UK Government was the second largest contributor to Sudan, with more than $40 million. There is absolutely no evidence that the attack on the Al Shifa factory or the fact that it is no longer able to produce have made any difference to the supply of medicines and pharmaceuticals. On the contrary, we can say with confidence that our work through the United Nations and through bilateral aid has had a substantial impact on the well-being of people in Sudan.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I had better not give way again.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is more to be done. I have tried to move the peace process forward and have engaged with the partners of the intergovernmental authority on development to see whether we can give greater momentum to that process. The United States is very much signed up to a new approach that will help us to move the process forward.
I was closely involved in a UK initiative that allowed us to negotiate, with both the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, corridors of tranquillity in Bahr el Ghazal that have enabled international aid relief to go to poor people in that area. The UK's record in helping the people of Sudan both with resources and politically is substantial, and I am proud of it.
We have also sought ways in which to rebuild and restore our relations with Sudan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was keen to meet the Sudanese Foreign Minister last September. I hope that issues relating to restoration of our ambassador to Khartoum may be resolved in the near future. That is in our interest, and in Sudan's interest. We are keen that it should happen.
My hon. Friend produced evidence that was not the soundest that I have heard him use. The report used as his main piece of evidence contains contradictory evidence. The Government will continue to rely on the statements of

the United States Administration that they had compelling evidence for their action. We are united in the fight against terrorism—at least I thought we were before the debate. Labour Members speak with one voice against terrorism. We shall continue to act against it, and we shall stand up against it every time we can. That is the only way in which the voices of democracy and free will can continue to be heard in the world.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Enterprise Support

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What measures she is taking to support enterprise in Northern Ireland. [76679]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Government support for promoting enterprise in Northern Ireland was enhanced by the innovative measures worth £100 million announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative of last May. The Budget provided a further boost for enterprise, with a reduction in corporation tax for small businesses, tax credit for research and development, and new corporate venturing measures. All that is good news for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided for business in Northern Ireland by the Chancellor's Budget can be built upon so that we build not only peace in Northern Ireland but lasting prosperity for that community, and so that we get the correct frameworks across the community in which everyone can prosper?

Mr. Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Yesterday, I launched a major economic strategy review document entitled "Strategy 2010", which was part of the Good Friday agreement requirements placed on the Government. It is a comprehensive study on how we can ensure that peace and prosperity can go hand in hand into the new millennium.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Why have no Northern Ireland Ministers or any relevant Treasury Ministers been prepared to see the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss the widely acknowledged fuel smuggling across the border with the Republic?

Mr. Ingram: I cannot answer for Treasury Ministers. I do not know what applications have been made to them. The matter falls within my remit in one sense, but excise duties are a matter for the Treasury, not for the Northern Ireland Office. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives on the issue, and we continue to meet at official level. It is not that we are unconcerned about what has happened, but we want to ensure that any measures that we take to stop the illegal activity have maximum impact. We also want to examine the disparities between the pricing structures north and south of the border.

Mr. Roger Stott: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to promote business and employment opportunities in Northern Ireland? Can he

give any figures on the number of young people in Northern Ireland who are taking advantage of Labour's new deal?

Mr. Ingram: That responsibility does not rest directly with me. It rests with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I understand that about 10,000 young people have taken advantage of the new deal initiative. It is an important initiative in Northern Ireland, as it is for the rest of the country. It has given an opportunity to young people, and it has now been extended into other age groups. It ensures that everyone can make a valuable contribution to the economic health and wealth of their community.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the problems facing the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, and of the importance of that industry to our economy. Is he aware that a number of Northern Ireland road haulage companies have relocated their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland? One company calculates that it could save more than £250,000 a year by doing so. What measures does the Minister intend to take to assist the Northern Ireland road haulage industry which faces very high costs indeed?

Mr. Ingram: I have not received any direct representations on the issue, although I have asked my officials to keep a watching brief over the direct impact in view of recent comments made by road hauliers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to suggest to those with whom he is in contact to write to me. I will pass on their concerns to the Minister responsible, who has already taken initiatives to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.

Equality Commission

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: When the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland will be established. [76680]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Northern Ireland Equality Commission will be established as early in April as possible. The posts have been advertised and at present we are considering applications.

Mrs. Fyfe: My right hon. Friend's answer will be most welcome in Northern Ireland. Will she join me in welcoming the commitment expressed earlier this month by both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the equality agenda in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to jobs? Does she share my hope that the commission will get off to the best possible start?

Marjorie Mowlam: I join my hon. Friend in wishing the Equality Commission the best of luck during the process of devolution when that takes place. I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are as committed as anyone to making it work.

Mr. Roy Beggs: When those in the Northern Ireland community look at the composition and membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland, they find it almost impossible to identify a Unionist, or someone who at least has an acceptable Unionist pedigree. Does the Secretary of State agree that all future


appointments to public bodies in Northern Ireland should enjoy the confidence of the whole community? Will she ensure that, when the Equality Commission is established, Unionists will at least have equal preferment on that body, given the perceived evidence in the past of preferential treatment being given to nationalists and to the do-gooder brigade?

Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the make-up of bodies such as the commission and others, the Peach criteria for public appointments are applied rigorously by the Government. Such appointments are all advertised in the newspapers, on the internet and in Braille. That was done for the Equality Commission and, where needed, there is an independent element in the interviewing process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, the representation of communities required by the legislation has taken place.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Equality Commission also deal with such matters as equality before the law? Given the report by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland on harassment of the late Rosemary Nelson by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, can we have confidence in the RUC continuing the investigation into the causes of her death? In the first place, the Metropolitan police had to be brought in, to achieve a degree of impartiality. How can we be certain that that will be the case in the inquiry into her death, when there is only one outside officer and only one with any sort of supervisory duty?

Marjorie Mowlam: In terms of the role of the Equality Commission, I assure my hon. Friend that there is an equality of opportunity duty, which I hope will be in force as a statutory duty by the summer. That equality of opportunity obligation on the public sector will be an important element in the working of the Equality Commission.
In relation to the sad death of Rosemary Nelson, the ICPC has just received back from the independent Metropolitan police commander, Commander Mulvihill, the accusations raised by Rosemary Nelson that it had passed to him. I understand that those matters will be passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that all efforts are being made on that front and when the evidence comes back to me, I shall examine it very carefully and in detail. I assure him of my on-going attention to the outcome of the Mulvihill investigation.
In respect of my hon. Friend's final point about the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Chief Constable reacted speedily by calling in outside supervision of the investigation, as well as external assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that that will give us a solid investigation, but I shall keep the matter under review.

Accident and Emergency Services

Mr. Tony McWalter: If each hospital providing accident and emergency services in Northern Ireland will receive accident and emergency

targeted funding as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget; and if she will make a statement. [76681]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): All accident and emergency departments will be eligible to benefit from the funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Details of how that additional money will be used are still being finalised. I would expect developments to be consistent with the Government's vision for the future development of Northern Ireland's hospital service set out in the document, "Putting it Right", which I published in November last year.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but there is fear in Northern Ireland that the benefits of the additional funding will be somewhat selectively applied and that some A and E departments might be closed. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the extra pressures on the ambulance service resulting from the changes will be met by additional resources, so that the new swish A and E departments will be accessible from all parts of the Province?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend can be assured that the £3 million available next year for upgrading A and E departments will be channelled to those who put a good case for upgrading. He makes an important point about the ambulance services; in "Putting it Right", I stated that an extra £15 million would be invested in the ambulance service to ensure that there is coverage throughout Northern Ireland and that people living in rural areas are not disadvantaged. It is important that there is a good ambulance service—one that is ready and fit for the 21st century—and the Government have addressed that in "Putting it Right".

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will agree that there have been some decided improvements in the ambulance service, which we welcome. However, do his plans envisage the retention of the casualty and emergency department at Belfast City hospital, bearing in mind the fact that the golden mile and the student population in the area pose a tremendous challenge these days? Will Shaftesbury Square hospital continue regularly to be retained for weekend use for emergency purposes?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the document I published a month ago, "Fit for the Future", in which I set out the position on acute services provision by hospitals in Belfast, including Belfast City hospital. I recognise the need for good-quality and efficient services in Belfast. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the £4 million I gave for the fractures unit only a few months ago. We recognise the current deficiencies, but, together, we are building a modern accident and emergency service that is fit for the population of Belfast and its environs.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the concern about accident and emergency provision; indeed, there is fear in many of the outlying areas of Northern Ireland—especially in my own constituency about Downe hospital, Downpatrick—as the district hospitals fear a downturn in the emergency


services that they can provide. What progress is being made on the implementation of the new accident and emergency regime required by the royal colleges in places such as Downed hospital? The £15 million the Minister mentioned will not be spent until April 2000, so will he tell me what progress has been made in respect of the provision in Down of a new hospital that can offer an appropriate level of services to the entire community of Down and Mourne?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in regular communication and often hold opposing views, but I acknowledge the fight that he has put up on behalf of his constituency, especially in respect of Downe hospital. He and I are as one on that issue, because we recognise the need to get services provided in the right place, at the right time, by the right person, irrespective of where people live. He knows that a business case for a new hospital in Down is currently being devised; it should arrive on my desk shortly. If the case is soundly made and the proposals have broad community support, I shall be willing to give the plan consideration in the near future.
Regarding accident and emergency services, I pointed out in one of the documents that I published that 75 per cent. of people referred to accident and emergency departments should not be there. That means that three out of four people admitted are blocking the best treatment being given in the quickest possible time to the one in four people who should be there. That needs to change. We need to upgrade accident and emergency units' diagnostic equipment, ensure that they have telemedicine facilities and consider the best way of linking ambulances and A and E units to serve people in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Peace Process

Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress is being made with the Northern Ireland political parties to implement the Good Friday agreement. [76684]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): We have come a long way in implementing the Good Friday agreement. We must now move quickly to overcome the remaining difficulties if the transfer of powers is to happen next week. All of us have a collective responsibility to do all that we can to achieve this. Intensive discussions with the political parties have been taking place and will continue. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland is in discussions at this very moment.

Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can she give the House an assurance that this Government will not become like the previous Government, who were transfixed and immobilised, on the question of decommissioning in the peace process? Surely the deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Frank Curry underline the fact that 1,000 silent guns and 1 tonne of Semtex buried and not used are not a problem when there are people who are willing to use one gunshot and 1 lb of explosive, which can derail us unless we face the issue.
Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, having missed the deadline of 10 March, she will call a meeting of the Assembly on 29 March and will set up the Executive in Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: The deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Mr. Curry are sad and difficult occasions for their

families but a stark reminder to everybody else involved in this process of what can happen if we do not make progress and instead go back down the road to the violence of the past.
On decommissioning and the formation of the Executive, I have made it clear on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we expect both things to happen. Both are crucial for the Good Friday agreement to work.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the deadline of 29 March. I have said on numerous occasions that we missed the target of 10 March. We set that as a goal because that is when we would have got all the necessary legislation through the House to make it possible for the transfer or devolution of powers to take place. I think that we are now looking at next week for the simple reason that it is a natural target a year after the agreement. I have said that I will call a meeting of the Assembly, which will automatically trigger the d'Hondt process. It is essential that that happens if progress is to be made.
I have made it clear that I will do that. Therefore, it is up to all the parties collectively, including us and the Irish Government, to do everything that we can to ensure that differences are resolved in the next week.

Mr. David Trimble: As the Secretary of State knows, we have now done all that we can in terms of the implementation of the agreement and that the obstacle to further progress now remains the sort of intransigence that I encountered yesterday afternoon when I met the gentlemen who should be serving as Members for Belfast, West and Mid-Ulster but refuse to do so.
Does the Secretary of State agree, dealing with the decommissioning issue, that the loyalist who planted the hand grenade in Castlewellan that went off yesterday, the loyalist responsible for the death of Rosemary Nelson and the loyalist who earlier this week declared that he would never decommission are all, objectively speaking, supporting the IRA in its refusal to decommission, and that the best thing that all three of those gentlemen could do to ensure that we have progress and achieve the success of peace would be to follow the example given by the leadership of the Loyalist Volunteer Force when it began the process of decommissioning?

Marjorie Mowlam: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning—[Interruption.] I have to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. Like me, he would like to see the weapons discovered, taken care of and out of politics. We agree with that and the position that he has just set out.
As everybody knows, however, all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. We must find a way of getting the Executive in place so that other parts of the agreement can be implemented in full. We have both those things to focus on in the next week. The important aspect of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that which everybody in the process needs to do, which is to focus on the big picture and make sure that progress is made.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend says that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. If that is so, why cannot the Government


purchase arms held by the paramilitary groups as part of an attempt to oil the wheels of the decommissioning process? I remind her that I have asked that question before, and I did not get a knock back, so I understand that the option remains open.

Marjorie Mowlam: Every option is open to make progress and every one will be considered. To reassure my hon. Friend that his point has been heard, I can tell him that the decommissioning body, under General de Chastelain, will be well aware of my hon. Friend's suggestion by teatime today, and I am sure that the General, whose duty it is to consider decommissioning schemes, will take it into account.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: If progress is not made on setting up the Executive by Good Friday, what will happen next?

Marjorie Mowlam: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the position is that some time during the week beginning 29 March—the earlier, the better—I shall ensure that I call a meeting of the Assembly so that the d'Hondt process will operate. Everybody knows that an inexorable course will then be followed. I want to ensure that the parties understand that if d'Hondt operates and an Executive of only one party is formed, rather than a cross-community Executive, powers cannot be devolved or transferred. Without those communities being included, the Executive would be dysfunctional and could not make decisions.
I make it clear, as I have done on other occasions, that we are meeting the Irish, the parties are talking and everybody is doing their best to make progress in a difficult, serious situation.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I take the Secretary of State back to last Friday and the disgraceful scenes in a Belfast courtroom when Bernard Maginn, the evil IRA murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, who was sentenced to more than 400 years in prison for his evil murders, laughed at the judge and said, "I'll be out in 16 months." Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to state clearly to the House that, if the IRA has not completed all its decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by next July, that evil man and his colleagues will not be released back on to the streets?

Marjorie Mowlam: I have communicated with Mrs. Restorick on numerous occasions, and I want to put on record yet again my sympathy and understanding for the pain that she and many others have gone through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question, but I have the right to put on record my concern, which I am sure is shared by the Conservative Members who are shouting at me.
I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that all parts of the Good Friday agreement have to operate if it is to succeed. One cannot cherry-pick or start rewriting part of the agreement because it suits at a particular time. We shall implement the agreement along with the parties as far as that is possible. It is up to us, as a Government, to implement the agreement that the parties and the people voted on.
That is what we are doing and that is what 29 March is about. If anything needs to be changed after that, it will be done in consultation with the parties.

Mr. MacKay: I do not wish the Secretary of State to cherry-pick parts of the Belfast agreement. She will be aware, as the House is aware, that, under the agreement, decommissioning must be completed by next May and she must release all terrorist prisoners by next July. At that time, three months will have passed since the date when all decommissioning should have taken place. I am asking the right hon. Lady a simple, straightforward question, to which Mrs. Restorick and everybody else would like an answer: will she promise me and the House that if there is not complete decommissioning by the IRA of illegally held arms and explosives by the due date in May, those evil murderers will not be released back on to the streets in July?

Marjorie Mowlam: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the power to vary that end date. However, I have made it clear to him on many occasions that speaking as he does and answering such questions now, when we are desperately trying to make progress in the last week that we have, does not help anybody. We have made it clear that decommissioning must happen. That is a crucial part of the agreement. To use the language of defeat and to ask for statements now about events a year down the road is not helpful. Of course those questions must be answered in the future, but, for goodness' sake, in a week such as this, when we are building up to 29 March, cannot the Opposition try to look on the positive side, rather than create problems?

Crime

7. Ms Joan Ryan: What measures she is taking to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. [76685]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Apart from doing everything possible to tackle and deter terrorist and paramilitary-related criminal acts, the Government are promoting a range of crime prevention measures in conjunction with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other statutory and voluntary agencies. Those measures include funding for the community safety centre, promoting public awareness campaigns and supporting projects to help reduce the incidence and fear of crime. A contribution from the modernisation fund will be used to boost crime prevention initiatives in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today laid in Parliament the policing objectives for the RUC in Northern Ireland for the year ahead.

Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are all aware that the police in Northern Ireland have been in the front line in dealing with terrorism and the appalling atrocities that have occurred. What steps are being taken to ensure that the RUC is prepared and able to cope effectively with the rest of its policing role and activities—what we might call a more usual policing role, serving the community in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the role performed by the RUC on behalf of


everyone in defending our freedoms in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. On the RUC's role in relation to other types of criminal activity, I pointed out in my earlier response some of the initiatives that have been taken. The allocation from the modernisation fund will be used for the introduction of closed circuit television schemes throughout Northern Ireland. I announced an early CCTV initiative for Portadown. It is hoped that that will assist the RUC to tackle the difficult problems that it faces in Portadown and elsewhere.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recognise that, although we welcome the measures that have been taken to combat ordinary crime in Northern Ireland, the main concern of the people of Northern Ireland is still the large hoard of illegal weapons held by terrorist organisations? Does the Minister therefore recall that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has consistently said that terrorist hoards of weapons should be given up? Does he welcome the statement that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday, to the effect that semtex should be dumped for General de Chastelain to pick up?
Does the Minister accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has made endless concessions in an effort to get the IRA to live up to the obligations that it took upon itself last year, and that the Unionist people have nothing left to give? Does he agree that it is long past time for the IRA to live up to its obligations to surrender the weapons? When the Government consider the matter of crime, will they ensure that the punishment fits the crime?

Mr. Ingram: Of course I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He has made a significant contribution to efforts to move the process forward, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). That is why they were recognised internationally and awarded the Nobel peace prize for their efforts. In her earlier comments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question about the need for decommissioning. All our attention is on that and on ensuring that all parts of the Good Friday agreement are implemented in full. That is the only way in which we can achieve genuine peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: After the Home Secretary's embarrassing, incompetent and bungled intervention earlier this week over the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State knew about that intervention beforehand? If she did, was she in full agreement?

Mr. Ingram: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of bungling. I remind the House that he was a Northern Ireland Minister before the election and we inherited a blank sheet in whole range of areas over which he had responsibility, such as victims and economic development.
Of course there were discussions on that particular issue within the Government, and a detailed answer has been given in relation to the way in which it has been handled by the Home Office and the way in which the Northern Ireland Office deals with matters of law relating to the release of prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Andrew George: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 March.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply. As the House knows, the Prime Minister is in Berlin today, attending the special European Council. I have spoken to him this morning about the situation in Kosovo. We agreed that we should take this military action with total resolve. This is a difficult decision and we have to see it through all the way.

Mr. George: Constituents are anxious that the Prime Minister should be successful in securing objective 1 status for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in Berlin this week. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if the Prime Minister returns victorious, that will also be a personal triumph for Cornwall's MEP, Robin Teverson, who has fought so long and hard for such an outcome? Does he also accept that local partners in Cornwall should be given every encouragement to get on with the important tasks in hand, without unnecessary European or United Kingdom Government interference?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The actions of everyone involved will bring about the achievement of objective 1 status and recognition of the special problems of Cornwall, and my right hon. Friend is dealing with those matters in Berlin. The establishment of development agencies, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), has also played an important part. We all look forward to developments in Cornwall and to the improvement of prosperity there, brought about by a Labour Government.

Mr. Jim Cousins: As you know, Madam Speaker, many hon. Members, not least those from the north-east of England, give a high priority to regional issues, but this morning our Prime Minister asked the British people to be ready to make sacrifices so that the Albanian Muslims of Kosovo can take their proper and rightful place in our common European home. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at the first indication that the Government of the Yugoslav Federation are willing to accept the deal accepted by the representatives of the Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo, the hostilities that are about to commence will be instantly terminated?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear yesterday that NATO is united and stands ready to take military action if Milosevic does not change his position and the repression continues. If, in those circumstances, he does not stop creating terror among the people in Kosovo—whole villages continue to be burnt no fewer than 25,000 people have been displaced in the four days since the peace talks broke


down—President Milosevic should be in no doubt that we will take whatever action is necessary to avert a humanitarian tragedy. He has his part to play.

Mr. Peter Lilley: The Deputy Prime Minister will know from our joint visit to Omagh after the tragic bombing there that I recognise his abhorrence of terrorism and share his determination to make the Good Friday agreement work. I know that he will share my disgust at the sight of the murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick laughing in court after he received three life sentences and boasting to his friends that he would be out in 16 months. Will the Deputy Prime Minister convey to the Prime Minister the strong feeling registered earlier in this House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should give an assurance that that evil man will not be released until Sinn Fein/IRA have given in their arsenal of weapons?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear a few moments ago, we will observe the Good Friday agreement. The exchange of prisoners, and the freeing of prisoners, is in line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Exchange?"] I withdraw the word "exchange". I apologise; I made a slip.
The freeing of prisoners is part of the Good Friday agreement, and we will observe it. Notwithstanding all the difficulties, and all the disgust that may be felt at the time, that is what we agreed to and what we intend to implement.

Mr. Lilley: I had hoped that the Government would be clearer than they have been about the obligation of Sinn Fein/IRA to hand in weapons. This week, the Home Secretary has sent unclear and confused signals about the Government's willingness to delay the release of prisoners. Is it not time that the Government sent the clear signal that the Good Friday agreement must be implemented in full? That means not releasing any more murderers while the terrorists on both sides refuse to give up their guns and bombs. Why do the terrorists want to keep their weapons, other than to use them or threaten to use them?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I find it difficult to accept that the right hon. Gentleman's aim is to secure agreement in Northern Ireland, given the language that he uses. We all know that the next few days will be critical to establishing a settlement on the Good Friday agreement. Assent to certain actions will have to be secured, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are very much involved in that.
The whole House has made it clear that we want agreement in Northern Ireland, and we are nearer to achieving that agreement than we have ever been. There are fewer murders, and there is more eagerness to secure agreement. We should place more emphasis on the words that encourage people to come together in agreement and dialogue, rather than using the language used by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alan Johnson: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I change the subject? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a national

minimum wage next week will be supported around kitchen tables throughout the United Kingdom—not least in the magnificent and historic city of Kingston upon Hull?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As a former commis chef who once spent most of his time around a kitchen table, let me say that I was protected by the wages councils that the previous Administration abolished, driving millions into poverty pay. I am particularly proud to be a member of a Labour Government who are introducing a statutory minimum wage from which millions will benefit from next week.
Let me be helpful to the Opposition. We intend to advertise to the people of this country, informing them of their rights in relation to the statutory minimum wage. In the interests of impartial advertising, I invite Opposition Members to suggest a form of words making it clear that the Tories fought the minimum wage tooth and nail, and would still abolish it if they ever got the chance to do so.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, there is widespread support on all sides for the action that, regrettably, now appears to be imminent in Kosovo. Does he agree that, precisely because British troops are going to be committed, it is necessary to have a clear, definable, achievable political end that will show what we are trying to secure, and will tell us when we should stop? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to define explicitly the aims that we seek to achieve through the actions that we shall take in Kosovo during the next hours and days?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the minimum objective of NATO action would be to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo, in order to avert a continuation of the humanitarian disaster that we all agree is taking place. NATO action would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship.

Mr. Ashdown: With great respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, what he has told us is the legal justification, not the political aim. A political aim gives an outcome which is stable and durable. While it might be desirable that we reduce President Milosevic's capacity to kill Albanians, that will not produce a stable Kosovo. May I suggest that the aims of the action should be these: in the first instance, to persuade President Milosevic to sign up to the Rambouillet agreement; and if, as I anticipate, that fails, to ensure that this is seen as the first step in the establishment of an international protectorate in Kosovo?

The Deputy Prime Minister: With the greatest respect, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here yesterday, he would have heard the Prime Minister address himself to that matter. As he made clear yesterday, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October, and these are the objectives of the action: end the repression, as the House has been calling for; withdraw his troops to barracks; get them down to the levels that he agreed in that agreement; and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, the heavy artillery and other weapons that he brought to Kosovo last January. That is the minimum condition to end the repression in Kosovo.

Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend please urgently inquire into the disastrous


developments in Vaux Breweries, which has its headquarters in Sunderland, my home town? Is he aware that some of the shareholders have pulled the plug on a management buy-out, against the wishes of the chairman, Sir Paul Nicholson? Is he aware that those shareholders are Mercury Asset Management Ltd., led by Carol Galley, who was born in Newcastle upon Tyne, the Bankers Trust and Hermes Pensions Management Ltd., which was the former Post Office pension fund and is led by Alastair Ross Goobey? Will he call those shareholders in to explain why they are prepared to sacrifice 700 jobs in Sunderland and Sheffield for the sake of only £2.5 million of extra shareholder value?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am aware of that concern. It has also been expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). I believe that Members have made it clear to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are concerned about the matter. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are prepared to discuss the issue and will make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: If NATO air strikes indirectly cause the situation of innocent people in Kosovo to get worse, rather than better, what then?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We are confident, of course, that the strategy that we are embarked on now will have the effect of reducing the Serbians' capability of continuing to repress the people in Kosovo. I believe that that will happen and that the strategy will achieve the ends that we have set out.

Angela Smith: Many of us find it very difficult to understand the mentality of those who abuse and inflict cruelty on children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has estimated that one child a week dies from cruelty. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his support, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House already have, to the NSPCC's full stop campaign to end cruelty to children within a generation? Will he give his personal support to the pledge, sign it and do what he can to stop such cruelty?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government welcome the NSPCC's initiative of this week. Indeed, many of the plans that the NSPCC is proposing are in line with the Government's strategy to help more children to be protected from harm and to be given the best possible start in life. I am sure that every hon. Member feels exactly the same about that and that there is common agreement between us.
As for my personal support, I am pleased to say that, at the end of January, I helped to launch the NSPCC's vision for children campaign and signed the petition that my hon. Friend talked of. I did it with the director of the society. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to express full support for all the society does.

Mr. Lilley: This week saw a mass demonstration by lorry drivers who face ruin after the Budget. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and road transport unions all say that 50,000 jobs will go. Was the Deputy Prime Minister consulted

by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the job-destroying fuel tax increases; if so, did he argue against them?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I did hold discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We are agreed that we desire to achieve a better environment in the United Kingdom, with increasing economic prosperity. In our debates on the lorry industry, it has become clear that—although there is much talk of travelling and transferring abroad—operating costs for the United Kingdom industry are about £600,000 less than in places such as France, Germany or Belgium. Costs for UK operators are therefore considerably different from those of their competitors abroad. That has been confirmed by an international consultant's report stating that costs for UK operators are two thirds those of some of their major competitors.
If there is concern about jobs, I should say that the boom-and-bust cycle under the previous Administration—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, helping to develop the Treasury's boom-and-bust policy—directly caused hundreds of thousands of hauliers to go to the wall. So we have no reason whatsoever to be apologetic for ensuring that the road industry has a proper part to play—and that the haulage industry has an essential part to play—in an integrated transport policy, which we are now developing.

Mr. Lilley: So the right hon. Gentleman was consulted, he did agree—and he apparently believes that all those truckers came to London to thank him for the benign regime that he has put in place for them! Is he aware of the case of Shaun Neal, of Harwich, who says in today's newspapers:
We were struggling before the Budget … Now we haven't got a chance. … Every corner we turn we have been hit by another"—
Government—"tax"?
The bogus figures that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned will not convince Shaun Neal or hauliers in Labour Members' constituencies. Since the Government have now been forced into crisis talks with the road haulage industry, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to discuss withdrawing the Budget fuel tax rise?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think it is a bit much when someone from the previous Administration, who introduced the fuel tax escalator—which has created much of the cost that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about—asks us to remove it. We will not. The Budget is set. We believe that it is a fair Budget, and that it deals with the type of economic problems that we inherited from the previous Administration. All the signs show that it is successful: lower interest rates, increasing growth—those facts show a successful economy.
Perhaps I should give the right hon. Gentleman a quote from the previous Chancellor, who—when talking of those who are critical of the fuel escalator—said:
Any critic of the Government's"—
the previous Government's—
tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]


That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.

Mr. Lilley: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his refusal to give a clear promise to discuss the withdrawal or reduction of those tax rises will come as a bitter blow to the Road Haulage Association—which has said that without those issues on the table, the talks are worthless? Is it not typical of the Government that they offer no real help? Is it not shameful that he, as Secretary of State for Transport, was off playing Jacques Cousteau when the Government decided to introduce the measures? Is not his refusal today the final proof that they are a tax-raising Government who do not care about British truckers, British business and British jobs?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not concern himself with the British environment. Ours is a balanced judgment between economic prosperity and the best environmental solution. We think that we have achieved that balance in the Budget. I tell him that, yes, we are holding discussions with the industry—more than were held by the previous Administration—in a forum that my right hon. Friend has convened. Of course we shall discuss in that forum the concerns of the road haulage industry.
As for the cheap jibe on diving, the people of the United Kingdom can make a judgment on whether—[Interruption.] They can. Whether it is on saving the tiger or on diving among the reefs, we have to make a judgment. I shall, as Secretary of State for the Environment, try to do that. I can however tell the right hon. Gentleman that although I dived to 80 ft, I did not dive deep enough to reach the low Tory poll rating.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating most warmly those Brits who received magnificent awards at the Oscars this year? Does he accept that, from day one, the Government were determined to build the foundations for even greater success in future? When the film action report is published next month, will it ensure that at least 20 per cent. of the films projected in British cinemas will be British, thereby illuminating the British genius to which Richard Attenborough frequently refers?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House would want to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the British film industry on its tremendous achievements. However, it was sad that some of them were based on American rather than British money. We feel that that could be improved and the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget are a step towards making it a totally British operation.

Mr. Peter Luff: On the subject of stealth taxes, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think is to blame for the fact that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who run Worcestershire county council have raised the council tax by more than four times the rate of inflation? Is it them, is it him or is it all of them?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It has become clear since various authorities have announced their proposed council taxes that the average council tax increase under Tory

councils is something like 9.8 per cent. whereas under Labour councils it is something like 6.7 per cent. So we are witnessing better value under Labour councils than under Tory councils.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister of the concern of a large number of car component manufacturers in my constituency and in the rest of Birmingham and the west midlands about the time that the Government are taking to decide how much investment they want to make in the future success of Rover? Will he contact his ministerial colleagues today and ask them to reach a quick decision, to allow Rover to build on the success that its management and work force have achieved over the past few years?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will understand the concerns that have just been expressed. Indeed, the Government are actively involved in the matter. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's views to my ministerial colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the House Library's arithmetic accurate when it reveals that next year taxation will rise by £7.1 billion as a result of the Chancellor's three Budgets? How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the contrast between those figures and the spin that the Chancellor placed on the Budget?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can refer to page 14 of the Red Book. I am not aware that the actual figures are disputed. The total amounts are disputed and how they are allocated has been a matter of argument, but there is no doubt about the overall tax benefits to many thousands of people. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about tax, is he not also concerned about Hampshire county council, which has increased council tax by 9.4 per cent. despite receiving one of the highest settlements?

Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of the main reasons for long-term unemployment in my constituency is the previous Government's lack of interest in the British shipping industry. At one time there were 1,800 shipworkers in my constituency; now there are 58. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will take measures to halt any further decline in the industry?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is concerned about the decline of the shipping industry. He has appointed Lord Alexander to look into financial policies that could reverse that decline. We have heard a lot from the Conservatives about lorry companies flagging out abroad to a flag of convenience. They presided over a fall in the British merchant fleet from 1,400 ships to fewer than 200 under flags of convenience. Whenever I protested,


I was told that it was all about competition. What a different attitude they have to the lorry hauliers' flag of convenience argument.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Is the Deputy Prime Minister in favour of parental choice and selection in education? [Interruption.]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry, I did not hear that.

Madam Speaker: If hon. Members were less noisy, we would hear the questions.

Mr. Fraser: I am prepared to give the Deputy Prime Minister enough time to try to answer the question. Is he in favour of parental choice and selection in education?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry that I did not hear the question. The selection system, and the 11-plus particularly, worked against me. I believe in a comprehensive education system. We should be able to meet the demands of all children, however gifted, in a comprehensive system. That is what we are trying to do with our "education, education, education" policies.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Did my right hon. Friend share my satisfaction when he read page 16 of our White Paper setting out our proposals for freedom of information legislation, which makes it clear that we intend to set a test for those who wish to stop disclosure of information? They will have to demonstrate that substantial harm would ensue. Has my right hon. Friend also noted that recommendation 9 of Sir William Macpherson's report says that the police should be brought under freedom of information legislation and that the substantial harm test should apply? Will he tell the House that we stand by our commitment set out in our White Paper and that we accept the unambiguous recommendation of Sir William Macpherson?

The Deputy Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: And if not, why not?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am pleased to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Sketch Writer, East. We have made clear the important principle in the White Paper. We hope that the Bill will be published in early May and it will address that point.

Mr. Eric Forth: In view of the ruling of the Law Lords a short time ago and their comments on the substantial reduction in the number of extraditable charges, when will we get a decision from the Home Secretary on the Pinochet case?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The legal arguments on the state of immunity have been given the most careful

and thorough consideration. Our highest court, sitting with seven Law Lords, has today given its judgment. The case remains sub judice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider the judgment.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure to the regeneration of east London. His commitment to the channel tunnel rail link and its benefits not only to east London but to the whole country are well documented. Will he advise us of the progress that is being made on the Jubilee line extension, which, with the docklands light railway, is a key element to drive forward the regeneration of east London? What success is he achieving in rescuing the scheme from the chaos left by the Conservatives?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We are confident that London Transport will open the Jubilee line extension in time for the millennium. We are in regular contact with London Transport and we are monitoring the situation closely. The House will be aware that I had to renegotiate the channel tunnel rail link agreement. The original agreement was disastrous for the taxpayer. The project was bankrupt, and we had to regenerate it. By a new form of financing, we were able to rebuild the channel tunnel rail link, which has now been started. The investment of more than £5 billion has been very important in the rebuilding of the Thames gateway area.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confine his remarks to the Ribble valley? The council tax in the Ribble valley is rising by 7.5 per cent.—more than three times the rate of inflation. We have a Liberal Democrat borough council and a Labour-run county council. Many of my constituents have had wage increases at the rate of inflation, and many are farmers whose wages have actually decreased. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider an excessive rise in the council tax? What protection can he give to the people of the Ribble valley from being clobbered by an increase of three times the rate of inflation?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will expect me to give my considered judgment on the council tax increases in all local authorities shortly. I have to report my judgment to the House. That is the normal practice, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await that statement.
As for the hon. Gentleman's constituents being clobbered by the Budget, let me tell him that 11,400 families, 17,000 pensioners and 1,700 small and large businesses in Ribble Valley benefited from the Budget. More than £25 million extra was provided for education in his constituency, and £222 million for health. How can he talk about his constituents being clobbered? It is about time he talked to them about a successful Labour Government beginning to repair the damage done by the previous Administration.

Points of Order

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, the House of Lords announced its decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson:
The result of this decision is to eliminate the majority of the charges levelled against Senator Pinochet by the Government of Spain and relied upon as the basis for extraditing him.
The charges have been drastically reduced, and only very limited charges remain. In giving judgment, their lordships said that the whole matter should be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.
As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the consistent view of the Opposition that this matter should be settled in Chile, and not here. What I would like to ask for goes further than what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said. I would like to ask the Home Secretary to review the case with the utmost urgency, and to make a statement to the House as soon as possible—preferably in the next few days.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say. I am sure that most Members will know that the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution in respect of some charges in the warrants against him. Extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending. The courts will have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain.
The remaining charges relate to events that have occurred since 1988 and I cannot, under our sub judice rule, allow a reference to them. Following what I have said, it will be obvious to hon. Members that I have not had an application from the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters. The Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and will have heard the exchanges.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of this month, I asked you what a Government Minister should do with a leaked document. Subsequently, you kindly wrote to me to explain that you were referring the matter to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Are you now in a position to report any progress?

Madam Speaker: Yes, I am. When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me—quite rightly—I undertook to look into it and to reflect on it. I am sorry that he has not been able to follow what has happened since then. Subsequently, I asked the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to take the issue under consideration. Its views were communicated to me in a letter, which was placed in the Library.
In essence, the Committee's view is that the fundamental responsibility of Members who receive leaked copies of Select Committee reports before publication must be to act in a way that does not impede the Select Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the House. In the judgment of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Member should not make use of leaked Select Committee papers and should return them without delay to the Clerk of the Select Committee.
The Standards and Privileges Committee may have more to say on the subject once it has completed its inquiry into the leak from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House made it plain that it would be possible for tomorrow's debate to relate to the situation in Kosovo, which the House would otherwise have no opportunity to discuss. On an Adjournment debate, there is not normally a vote, although it is possible to register an opinion on the Adjournment. That has been done; I have done it myself. Ought not the Government, in view of the, gravity of the decision announced yesterday, to replace the Adjournment debate with a debate inviting the House to endorse a motion, so that those who agree with it can support it and those with a contrary view can register that view in the Lobby?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be of assistance to the House if I make two brief observations. First, the Government are conscious of the fact that the debate announced for tomorrow is likely to be dominated by Kosovo and recognise that the House will not want to lose the time for a general debate on defence. Secondly, there are hardly any precedents for a debate on such a matter, at a time of conflict, other than on the Adjournment. That was true throughout the Falklands war and almost throughout the Gulf war.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a debate on a point of order. I think that the Leader of the House has made the Government's position absolutely clear. I understand the wide range of views on the issue, and I shall certainly see that there is an opportunity for that wide rainbow spectrum of views to be heard in tomorrow's debate.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order. I am not debating your ruling, Madam Speaker, merely clarifying the point that, in view of what the Leader of the House has just said, there is a precedent, when no motion is tabled, for the House to register its opinion on a vote on the Adjournment, and I want to be sure that my recollection of that is correct.

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 4 of our business today, "Reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds", was referred to in Prime Minister's questions by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who drew our attention to his wish for Cornwall to have objective 1 status. The matter was discussed at length yesterday in European Standing Committee C. May I seek your assurance that the Hansard report of those proceedings will properly reflect the fact that no Liberal Democrat Member attended that Committee to raise the matter?

Madam Speaker: That is a good try, but not a matter for me, I fear.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. James Wallace, supported by Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle and Mr. Alasdair Morgan, presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with respect to acts of recklessness, time limits for bringing proceedings and penalties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 71].

Pensions (Amendment)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman for all the hon. Members chatting around him. He is so popular that I can hardly see him.

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions.
The Bill would require the Government to present an annual report to Parliament on the value of service pensions, war pensions and war widows pensions, and related issues. It would also require the disclosure of details on the number of pensioners and the degree of sufficiency afforded by the various benefits, allowances and pensions, as well as details of the Government's plans to improve such benefits and pensions. The Secretary of State would be obliged to consider representations from both individuals and organisations involved with ex-service people and to consult them before presenting such a report to Parliament.
Such legislation is timely, because there is a growing body of opinion among all our constituents that the voice of those who made considerable sacrifices on behalf of the United Kingdom in the armed forces is not sufficiently reflected in our deliberations. I remind the House that the last time that we had a debate on veterans' issues was on 1 July 1996, when I won the ballot for a Friday morning debate—an opportunity now denied to Back Benchers. It is many years since a Prime Minister met in summit with the representatives of ex-service organisations. In other countries, such a situation would not endure. In the United States of America, all ex-service organisation have regular access to the highest levels of the Administration and to the President himself.
We need to create a culture whereby Government is much more sensitive to the needs of ex-service people. An identical Bill to my measure passed through all its stages after it was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Morris of Manchester. If this Bill had been on the statute book and placed its duties on Government, the interests of those suffering from what we know as Gulf war syndrome, and related illnesses, might be substantially more advanced than they are. The indefensible anomaly whereby war widows pensions and war disablement pensions have different values in different local authority areas, would probably also have been resolved.
There is also the scandal of the "pensions trough". Often, the recommendations of the armed forces pay review body are implemented in stages and that disadvantages those retiring at certain times of the year, compared to their colleagues with identical service who retire at a different stage of the calendar year. If the Government were forced to make an annual report to the House, followed by a debate, on the state of war pensions, it would force us to address that issue.
I also wish to flag up the continuing disagreement between the ex-service organisations and the Government on the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. I believe that it


is proven that many ex-service men and, I suppose, some women have suffered a loss of hearing because of their war service. However, that is not sufficiently recognised by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security.
Before 1973, war widows campaigned for an improvement in their pensions. They achieved something for their successors in that the spouses of ex-service men and women retiring after 1973 were entitled to receive half the "spouses" pension on being widowed. Those who were widowed before 1973 still receive only one third of their spouses' retirement pension. I remind the House that that group includes the second world war generation and we are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice. Their number is diminishing and they are growing more frail. We have a duty and obligation to discriminate in their favour.
The Royal British Legion, the Officers Pension Society—which, despite its name, represents the interests of all ranks—and all the other ex-service organisations feel strongly that the Bill should be placed on the statute book as a discipline on Governments, of whatever political complexion, so that those issues are automatically addressed every year by the House of Commons. Another illustration of my case is the position of the spouses of ex-service men—and some women—who married their spouses after they had retired from the armed forces. There is appalling discrimination against them. Those who fall into that category, after 1978, may receive a war widows pension, but those who were in that category before 1978 do not. That discriminates badly against the older generation.
I do not want to detain the House, which has much to address itself to this afternoon. However, I did not realise a couple of weeks ago, when I decided to introduce the Bill, that I would do so on such a poignant day. In a few hours, the men and women of our armed forces may be required by Her Majesty's Government to put themselves in peril. Whenever forces are deployed, particularly in a war, accidents happen and there are injuries under enemy fire.
We hope and pray that casualties will be kept to a minimum if engagement in Kosovo proves inevitable. Throughout history, the House of Commons has rather glibly expected the men and women of our armed forces to put themselves in danger. We owe them a great debt, and I do not think that we repay it sufficiently. I hope that the men and women who will be deployed today and the men and women who have given service in the past will find favour with the Bill. I ask the House to endorse it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. David Crausby.

PENSIONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 72].

REFORM OF THE STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to reform of the Structural Funds, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to Agenda 2000, reform of the Cohesion Fund, and European Union Document No. 5480/99, an amended draft Council Regulation on the European Regional Fund; and supports the Government's view that reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds is essential in preparation for enlargement and should be concluded by a fair, affordable and durable outcome for all Member States; agrees that the Cohesion Fund is no longer justified where Member States have been admitted to Stage 3 of EMU, and should be phased out as soon as possible, and that the European Development Fund Regulation provides a suitable basis for the use of that Fund.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill:

Orders of the Day — Timetable

1. Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Orders of the Day — Questions to be put

2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
3. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.
8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
The Local Government Bill was in Committee for more than 36 hours, over 15 sittings. Detailed scrutiny of more than 200 amendments and nine new clauses took place. Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it. An informal timetable was agreed, and it was used effectively and

without curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition. There was no complaint, from either side of the House, about insufficient time having been allocated for debate. In fact, the Bill finished earlier than the timetable allowed. We spent an average of 37.5 minutes on each group of amendments. Last night, in five hours—six if we include the money resolution—we managed to consider just two groups of amendments.
Today, we will complete Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It has received widespread support from local government, the public and private sectors as well as the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. It is a measure of the isolation of the official Opposition that, despite widespread support urging us to enact the Bill, they sought last night to make a mockery of debate on the Bill. We saw their tactics in the Chamber last night. More importantly, we know that they had briefed journalists that they intended to use those tactics. I was told that they intended to disrupt proceedings.
All the huffing and puffing of Opposition Members—we saw much of it last night—is only so much hot air when we recall their enthusiasm for guillotining debate on the poll tax and the abolition of the Greater London council. That legislation was passed in the face of bitter opposition from local government, let alone the people of this country, in contrast to the support that this Bill has received. Their protests are exposed for the sham that they really are when we recall the use of 12 guillotine motions in one Session of Parliament when the Conservative party was in government.
Let us now stop the childish bickering and get on with debating the Bill. It is a serious matter and it deserves serious consideration. So far, it has not been treated seriously on the Floor of the House on Report by the Conservative party. We look forward to a constructive debate today.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I detect a marked change of tone between the Minister today and the Leader of the House last night. The Minister expresses some regret at having to move the guillotine motion. There was no sense of regret from the Government last night. The guillotine was announced with glee and joy by the Government. They exulted in curbing discussion and debate in the House last night.
We are constantly reminded that the Labour party claims to be a people's party, but the Government behave more like the only party that rules the People's Republic of China than a party in a democratic state. I am sure that the Minister agrees that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. Why, then, was no approach made to any Conservative Member about the slow progress made yesterday afternoon? No formal approach was made. If concerns had been raised, they would no doubt have been heeded.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. I had contact with his Whip on the Bill. I said that progress was slow and asked whether we were expected to go through the night and whether that was sensible.

Mr. Jenkin: At no point did the Minister suggest that his patience was as short as it was or that he was so


looking forward to his early bed. It would have been better if the Government had engaged in some proper discussion rather than acting precipitately and with triumph in their eyes to crush discussion and debate.
There remain many substantive issues to discuss. Many of the issues will have to be raised in the other place. However, we know what will happen if the other place takes a different view from that of the Government—it will be treated with scorn and derision too, and set aside as though it had no right to any discussion. It has become characteristic of the Government that proper discussion and debate are stifled. I want to take only a little time on the motion, because we want to devote the time available to the substantive issues raised by the amendments rather than to the motion.
The motion is the worst kind of guillotine. At no point was there any discussion about how the time might be allocated to different parts of the Bill. Worse than that, the motion sets a limit of five hours on the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill, including on the guillotine. So this discussion on the guillotine comes out of the time available for discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has happened before.

Mr. Jenkin: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Not only has it happened before, but when the Tory Government were in power it happened quite regularly. Many of us on the Opposition Benches then used to curb whatever we had to say on the guillotine motion in order to spend more time on the principle of the debate. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about autocratic regimes and all the rest of it. I was in the House when the Tory Government, who had 18 years, introduced guillotines on most of the privatisation legislation. They introduced a guillotine on the Single European Act. They introduced guillotines every single year. We had them coming out of our earholes. We have had only one guillotine since 1 May 1997. Who are the autocrats now?

Mr. Jenkin: It might be necessary to put guillotines on the hon. Gentleman's interventions; they are becoming so long now that he is in his dotage. On the substantial point he made, the Conservative party's attitude is changing. [Interruption.] Goodness me, the Labour party has changed its attitude on a large number of matters and have adopted Conservative views. It seems strange for the hon. Gentleman to justify joining in with what happened last night on the basis that he loathed it when we were doing it to him. We should all agree that there is a better way.
One of the ideas that the Select Committee on Procedure came up with was the timetabling of Bills. At no point did the Government ask us to consider a more constructive timetable for the Bill. We ended up with the least satisfactory kind of guillotine, which may suit the despots in the Whips Office, but does not suit democratic discussion in this country.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to express my concern at the decision to move a timetable motion. It is typical of the Government that, on

the day when British service men might be going into action in Kosovo, the Government should be doing two things: first, they are truncating the vote on an important local government measure; and secondly, they are denying hon. Members an opportunity—even though pressure was exerted last night—to discuss Kosovo today on the rearranged business. It is typical of the Labour Government that they have done both those things.
The Bill is important, but we have been granted only five hours to discuss the remaining parts of it. We should remember that the Report stage is when hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have an opportunity to influence thinking. We have a substantial number of amendments and new clauses to discuss—there are 10 groups, containing more than 70 amendments. We know full well that if we divide on any one of those amendments, that time will come out of the allocated timetable.

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
The time for this debate will also come out of that timetable, as, no doubt, will the right hon. Lady's intervention.

Ms Armstrong: I welcome the right hon. and learned Member to local government debates. It is a pity that he did not show his face yesterday.

Mr. Hogg: I was here yesterday, listening in a despairing frame of mind because Labour Back Benchers did not participate at all. That was one of the points to which I wanted to draw your attention, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made the point that the Government will get their way in any case. That is true, but participation in debate is an opportunity to highlight, and focus on, errors in a Bill. The Bill is important and its errors are not going to be addressed. When the Bill goes to another place, I hope that it will be debated extensively, as it should be, because their lordships will know that it has not been properly debated in this place.
One or two provisions in the Bill raise issues of fundamental importance. The Henry VIII clause—clause 15—is a scandal; it enables the Government to disapply legislation and to give powers to local authorities as they think fit. The only statutory mechanism that the Government are obliged to employ is the affirmative resolution procedure. However, as you will know better than most people, Madam Speaker, that procedure is unamendable. The Government are giving themselves powers to disapply legislation or to create new powers and obligations, subject only to the affirmative resolution procedure. I regard that as an absolute scandal. That matter, along with many others, should be the subject of extensive debate. To allow only five hours in which to debate 10 groups of amendments and the timetable motion, and to have such Divisions as the House might think appropriate, is in no sense an appropriate way to treat a democratic assembly.

4 pm

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I do not want to take too much time, as I think that we should be spending our time debating the Bill. However, I hope that when the


Minister replies she dissociates the Liberal Democrats from her remarks about Opposition Members wasting time. Yesterday evening, only one Liberal Democrat Member spoke, and that for only about 10 minutes.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Housing on the way in which she moved the guillotine motion. The right hon. Lady addressed one of the issues that the House traditionally has to weigh, which is whether there is any question of delay in the conduct of the Report stage. However, she addressed little else: for example, she did not tell us that an unconscionable length of time had originally been spent on the Bill. Library notes used to advise us on guillotines, telling us how many hours had been spent on each stage of a Bill before a guillotine had been judged to be appropriate.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out the historic reasons as to why it is appropriate that, on Report, the full range of Members of the House can bring to bear their views and judgment on the individual clauses and parts of a Bill. Following on from that, I wish to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). It is intolerable to place before the House a guillotine motion that is constructed in such a way that it incorporates the Standing Order that allows three hours to debate it into the total time allowed for debate on the Bill, including Third Reading.
Given that the Government have clearly weighed that matter, let us suppose that the debate on the guillotine motion runs for three hours and that, quite appropriately, the House decides to divide on it. If that happens, the Government are telling the House and the country at large that consideration of all the clauses of the Bill and Third Reading is to be completed in only about one hour and 40 minutes. I do not believe that that can be the Government's intention.
I should like to think that this is an example of the mindless imposition of a poorly drafted guillotine. The two acts are quite separate. First, there is the question of why the Government think it appropriate and necessary to impose a guillotine; I am opposed to the use of guillotines, but the Government nevertheless make out a case. Secondly, there is the appropriate and proper consideration of the issues relating to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was unerringly inaccurate in his assertion that today's guillotine is the first of this Parliament. The Labour Government have taken it into their head that it is wholly appropriate to guillotine even constitutional measures that are taken on the Floor of the House, and we have already had two guillotines on such measures. The Government should reflect on their action, despite the fact that the majority that is assembled will be sufficiently formidable to carry the guillotine motion. The Bill commands considerable support, both on the Government Benches and throughout the country, so there is no point in conducting such a major piece of legislation in this way. However, as on every great issue that faces the House, there is always another side to the argument. Surely it is not inappropriate that the other side should be able to have its say?
The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover encapsulated what has become the defence of a Government who turn to guillotines to an increasing extent—that two wrongs make a right. Criticism was rightly expressed at the time of the conduct of the three Governments between 1979 and 1997 who, to an increasing extent, imposed guillotines as a measure of the management of the House. The Minister, then in Opposition, opposed those measures at the time, but now, when she has the honour to serve the Government and therefore the interests of the people, she is prepared to bring forth this most onerous and hideous guillotine.
Reflect on it: that is all that I say to the Government. If the House decided to take its time on this issue, the way in which the Government have constructed the guillotine would reduce the entirety of the rest of the debate, including Third Reading, to one hour and 40 minutes. It is therefore not good enough to say that two wrongs make a right.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we were to have a substantial number of Divisions on any of the amendments, we would not have time to debate Third Reading?

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. and learned Friend made that point eloquently. It is one which has haunted debates on guillotines. The right hon. Lady and the other occupants of the Government Front Bench are fully aware of that. It is the very onerousness of the guillotine that suggests that there is a determination to restrict proper and appropriate debate.
I started by praising the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that, in spite of everything that he has said, the Government may well have an opportunity, or may be forced, to take a different view from the one that they are now taking when the Bill returns from another place? If their lordships decide that it is their duty to examine carefully the parts of the Bill that we shall not be able to consider as a result of the guillotine, the result may be a large number of amendments coming back to us. I would hope that we shall then have an opportunity properly to consider those amendments, however an inadequate substitute that might be.

Mr. Shepherd: Indeed, one of the duties of any second Chamber is to try to take up those areas of great pieces of legislation that have not been properly scrutinised, or which that Chamber judges the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to examine. Every guillotine is an argument to the House of Lords that the work has not been done properly in this place.
That is the crux of new Labour and the signal to the world, which is almost a cant. New Labour believes in a people's Government. It says that it believes in people, people, people. Yet when it comes to the traditional processes of advising, arguing and informing the House, the Government seek a guillotine.
That charge was made against other Governments whom I served. I thought that the guillotine was wrong then, as I tried to tell the right hon. Lady. The business managers should consider the way in which the guillotine has been constructed. Her argument may be fair, and the


House will judge that and, in turn, whether there was unnecessary, imprudent and improper delay yesterday. Nevertheless, the business managers could have constructed a guillotine that allowed reasonable discussion of the parts of the Bill that the Government acknowledge are of importance to the country and to the structure of the Bill. This guillotine is bad and it should be rejected.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Last night, the usual channels effectively failed to provide us with an orderly conduct of business that would have enabled us to debate all the groups of amendments that were before us. I regret that and the fact that we are having to have a debate today on a blunt instrument, the guillotine. I think that it will deny us the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Bill during the five hours that are available to us.
Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the more serious clauses in the Bill that will arise later in our consideration of it. They are right to be concerned. Given the guillotine and the absence of any structure in terms of the time that we might take on each group of amendments, we might find that some of the more serious powers—not least the Henry VIII clause, which will give sweeping powers to Ministers—will go undebated on the Floor of the House. We might not have a chance to debate—let alone divide the House on—various aspects of that clause.
Five hours is not enough to do justice to an important Bill to which the Minister rightly attaches great store. Those outside, while rightly welcoming the Bill because it will remove compulsory competitive tendering from the statute book, have anxieties that we should be addressing. They extend to the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy clawback and to the basis upon which the Government intend to take to themselves powers to cap local authorities. Those are serious matters and the amendments that relate to them should be debated and tested. We will not have the opportunity to do that.
I urge the Government to think again and to take the opportunity during today's business to try to reopen channels so that we can have a serious debate, even if it is, sadly, to be time limited. A guillotine as blunt as this one will do our democracy no good and will do no favours to those who will have to live with the effect of these local government proposals.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 162.

Division No. 129]
[4.10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert ((Dov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Austin, John
Blackman, Liz


Barnes, Harry
Blizzard, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Begg, Miss Anne
Bradshaw, Ben


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)





Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Galloway, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caborn, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Khabra, Piara S


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kingham, Ms Tess


Follett, Barbara
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David






Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Livingstone, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Jeff


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McGrady, Eddie
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Swinney, John


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Todd, Mark


Palmer, Dr Nick
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Pendry, Tom
Truswell, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Vaz, Keith


Powell, Sir Raymond
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wills, Michael


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey





Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. David Hanson and


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson.


Wyatt, Derek





NOES


Allan, Richard
Harris, Dr Evan


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Norman
Horam, John


Baldry, Tony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Body, Sir Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David

 Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burns, Simon
Livsey, Richard


Burstow, Paul
Loughton, Tim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis 

Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Corrnack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Oaten, Mark


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Öpik, Lembit



Page, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Randall, John


Evans, Nigel
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Rendel, David


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fearn, Ronnie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight, Howard
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forsythe, Clifford
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sanders, Adrian


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stunell, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Webb, Steve


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, William
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Trend, Michael
Woodward Shaun


Tyler, Paul
Yeo Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wallace, James



Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles
Sir David Madel and


Waterson, Nigel
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill:

Orders of the Day — Timetable

1. Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Orders of the Day — Questions to be put

2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

3. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.

7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.

8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.

9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Local Government Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 6

>ENDORSEMENT OF COUNCIL TAX BY REFERENDUM

`.—(1) Schedule 1 shall not apply when the council tax proposals of a relevant local authority have been endorsed in a referendum of electors registered within the local authority area.
(2) A proposal shall be deemed to have been endorsed if it is supported by a simple majority of voters where at least 50 per cent. of the electorate have voted.'—[Sir Paul Beresford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 28, page 15, line 37, after 'regulation', insert 'and limitation (capping)'.
No. 1, in page 15, line 38, at end add
'but shall cease to apply on 1st April 2005.'.
No. 101, in clause 29, page 16, line 14, leave out `authorities or'.
No. 102, in page 16, line 15, after 'authority', insert
`and the Greater London Authority'.
No. 103, in page 16, line 17, at end add
`provided that any criterion referring to an authority's budget requirement for the financial year beginning on 1st April 1998 shall be deemed to refer to the greater of the budget requirement and the amount of the authority's Standard Spending Assessment for that financial year.'.
No. 105, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'authorities or'.
No. 106, in page 16, line 37, after 'authority', insert
`and the Greater London Authority.'.
No. 84, in page 16, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
No. 85, in page 17, line 8, leave out subsection (11).
No. 42, in schedule 1, page 19, line 26, at end insert—
`() must include the principle that if the budget requirement is set below the total Standard Spending Assessment for an authority, it shall not be regarded as excessive.'.
No. 43, in page 19, line 26, at end insert—
`() must include the principle that if the budget requirement is set within twelve and one half per cent. in excess of an authority's total Standard Spending Assessment, it shall not be regarded as excessive.'.
No. 108, in page 19, line 33, at end insert—
'(c) it is between the Council Tax Band D for the authority and for the other authorities in its category of authority'.
No. 113, in page 19, line 34, leave out subsection 5.
No. 109, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'If'.
No. 111, in page 19, line 34, after 'State', insert 'will determine'.
No. 110, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'determines'.
No. 114, in page 19, line 43, leave out
`If he does not determine such categories,'.
No. 115, in page 20, line 2, after 'relevant', insert 'and is reasonable'.'
No. 117, in title, title, line 3, after 'regulation', insert `and limitation (capping)'.

Sir Paul Beresford: Unusually perhaps, I shall start by speaking to the amendments, because they set the scene for the new clause. They all relate to two different forms of capping in the Bill—the crude and universal council tax benefit subsidy capping and the subjective, or selective, capping that was so proudly introduced by the Secretary of State earlier this year.
On Second Reading, I pointed out that the Bill, as far as it has been decorated for Labour Back Benchers, has a sugar coating of best value and removal of compulsory competitive tendering, but its core is an extremely bitter and unpleasant pill. The capping rules and regulations in the Bill are more unpleasant, more manipulative and more vicious than anything ever proposed by a Conservative Secretary of State, but, as Liberal Democrat Members have pointed out, they may be in the hands of a Conservative Secretary of State post-election.
I am tempted to suspect that the restriction of discussion on the Bill by the guillotine motion may be seen as a plus point for the Labour Whips because I am convinced that not only people in local government but many Labour Back Benchers are opposed to this double form of capping—or they would be, given half a chance. They recognise the measure as a manifesto about-turn—their manifesto, their about-turn.
No amount of scurrying and huffing and puffing by the Minister for Local Government and Housing in Committee covered the fact that the council tax benefit subsidy limitation is a crude, universal form of capping. Worse than that is the capping of a number of local authorities at a point below the standard spending assessment level. The secondary capping is selective capping; the powers have been renamed reserve powers.
The Department's own explanatory note makes clear just how extensive those powers are in comparison with the current arrangements. There are four such powers. First, the Secretary of State
may designate the authority in-year"—
meaning the current financial year. Secondly—this is an additional power—the Secretary of State
may designate the authority for the following year".
Thirdly—this is another additional power—he
may set a notional budget requirement to be used for the purposes of comparisons instead of the actual budget requirement to decide if budget requirements are excessive".
Fourthly—another additional power—he
may designate the authority over a number of years, starting in-year or the following year.
Those powers are more excessive than any that have ever been considered, which is why amendments Nos. 98 and 115 were tabled. The amendments make it clear that the Bill provides for a very heavy-handed form of double capping. No doubt, for spin-doctoring reasons, amendments Nos. 98 and 117 will be rejected, but I can see no reason for rejecting them other than the fear of losing face.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Derbyshire this year? The county was capped


for £1 million on a budget of £470 million, and it cost £320,000 to change that. It was the tightest cap ever imposed on a local authority.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that ludicrous situation, which raised a smile, although it was expensive for the people to whom it applied. Under the Bill, however, they could experience three further versions.
Amendment No. 103 refers to council tax benefit subsidy capping, but to only one aspect of it—perhaps the most insidious aspect. A number of local authorities will be capped at a level set below SSA. They are the authorities that set their budgets for 1998–99 below SSA. I realise that the SSA for 1999–2000 has come to mean what Ministers wish it to mean. The local government finance report states that
the calculation makes use of information reflecting demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area.
That means whatever Ministers wish it to mean at the time. However, for the year 1998–99 the same report defined the SSA as
representing an appropriate level of budget requirements to provide a standard level".
That means that, having set an SSA that indicates the level of services that they expect and by setting a capping level for council tax benefit subsidy below the SSA, the Government are forcing local authorities to provide substandard services.
For many years the SSA has been accepted as a floor below which various Secretaries of State have sought not to push local government. Now this Labour Government have done precisely that in the case of a number of authorities, including some quite poor ones, such as Brent, Newham and Ealing.
As I made clear in Committee, I oppose the regulations, but I am particularly opposed to the Government's outrageous attempt to hit local authorities by fixing their benefit subsidy level below SSA. Not only will the subsidy limitation mean that the nearly poor are paying for the poor; in the case of some local authorities, the setting of the level below SSA may well impinge to a small degree on the financing of the services that people require and expect. The amendment is designed to bring back the floor below which the Government cannot go—the floor that has always been there, and ought to be there.
4.30 pm
I now refer to amendments Nos. 102, 101, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111 and 114. As I have said, perhaps the most dubious aspect of the capping under schedule 1 is that it allows the Secretary of State to be extensively selective. By that, I mean that the Secretary of State may, if he or she wishes, choose every local authority for capping, or just one.
Careful perusal of the schedule will reveal that the justification for the selection could be genuine, arbitrary or even political. It is also possible for the Secretary of State to pick addictively on a particular authority, or a number of particular authorities, over one or a number of years.
The intention of the amendments, which may be technically flawed, is to impress on the Secretary of State and the House the subjectivity of the schedule. I suspect

that the Minister will tear the amendments apart on technical grounds, but, if the House is aware of the subjectivity, it is possible for changes or amendments at a later stage—in another place, presumably—to return some reasonableness to these exceptionally heavy-handed and subjective capping rules.
Amendment No. 108 would require the Secretary of State, when considering whether to impose capping on a local authority, to compare that authority with other authorities in the same category. The intention is to bring some sense to a potentially unfair approach to specific local authorities.
The response of the Minister of State to the Liberal Democrat-inspired debate on council tax increases on Monday added to my concern. The right hon. Lady was on full bellowing form—her voice was raised and she thumped the Table to emphasise her points.
I specifically refer to column 45 of the Official Report of 22 March. The Minister of State selectively attacked three Conservative councils in London. She explained that the top three increases, in percentage terms, in council tax in London were in Conservative Kensington and Chelsea, Conservative Westminster and Conservative Wandsworth. In percentage terms, she was right. She went on to contrast them with other councils, specifically naming Labour Islington, Greenwich, Hackney and Lambeth, and to say that they were cutting council tax.
If that deceitful approach to the reality of council tax bills as they land on the doormats of London residents is an indication of the way in which the Minister of State proposes to select councils for capping, we will definitely need some realistic changes in the Bill.
It is worth putting the matter into perspective. In mentioning the council tax increases of those three Conservative authorities in percentage terms, the Minister of State paid no regard to the reality of the bills as they were handed out. In pure money terms, at band D, the increases in those three authorities' council tax were average or below average in London, but if one lists the actual council taxes at band D, the four lowest in London are in those three Conservative authorities, plus the City of London.
What is more, in terms of the average council tax paid by residents, Wandsworth council continues the trend of the past 20 years—for two decades, it has had the lowest average council tax not only in London in the country—and that despite the manipulation of the SSA, which has meant that the council has had its centrally distributed funds for the financial year cut by £3 million.
I am bearing in mind the best value aspects of the Bill when I say that Wandsworth council has a reputation for quality services, as shown by the fact that, between 1996 and 1998, it collected the greatest number of charter marks. The council always does well in the Audit Commission performance indicator charts, which will be used for best value.
Perhaps the final accolade is the fact that Wandsworth is a Conservative council in an inner-city area and has a strong majority. It has been backed year after year by popular vote—a popular vote that is given to it because of the combination of its ability to produce quality services, best value services and value for money.
In Monday's debate, the Minister added to her iniquitous attacks by singling out for praise Islington, Greenwich and Hackney. Curiously, she praised them


because they had reduced council tax. The reality is that, using her—percentage—terms, they reduced council tax by less than 1 per cent. The situation is even more appalling when one realises that band D council tax for Conservative Westminster and Wandsworth is £230 and £250 respectively, whereas it is £670 for Hackney, £763 for Greenwich and a staggering £792 for Islington. All that those councils could manage was a tax reduction of less than 1 per cent. on taxes that are three times higher than those of the councils that the right hon. Lady chose to criticise.
The point of amendment No. 108 is quite clear. If a Labour Secretary of State decides to pick on Westminster or Wandsworth—as the Minister did on Monday—or on any other local authority, he or she will be required to compare the bills on the doorsteps of residents of that authority with those of other similar authorities. Specifically, Westminster and Wandsworth compare well with other authorities on quality of services, and on the fact that they managed to produce those services at low cost to their residents.
Amendment No. 115 would add the words "and is reasonable" to subsection 52B(7)—which, currently and quite astoundingly, states:
In determining categories of authorities for the year under consideration the Secretary of State shall take into account any information he thinks is relevant.
The subsection must be brought back within reason; hence, the amendment to add the words "and is reasonable".
Hon. Members will see that that catch-all subsection would enable the Secretary of State to be selective, if he or she wishes, in an extreme and unreasonable manner. It would be quite possible, for example—to develop the point that I was making on the previous amendment—for the Secretary of State to select any authority whose name began with "D" and ended in "ty", or began with "W" and ended in "th".
Amendments Nos. 108 and 103 were tabled specifically to be helpful amendments, and are intended to bring a little fairness and a tiny bit of reasonableness to a Bill which currently would enable the Secretary of State unreasonably to savage individual local authorities as he or she saw fit.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) described an interesting situation in which his local authority decided to set council tax by reference to a referendum of local people. I realise that such an approach could be heavily flawed, according to the nature of the question and the composition of the electorate—whether it comprises those who pay and receive, only those who pay, or only those who receive.
Such referendums, however, offer an interesting prospect. If the Secretary of State came blundering in, treading on the sensibilities of local people—who might want and could then vote for specific services, at a specific price, performed in a specific manner, and, therefore, at a specific cost—the Secretary of State would have to leave that local authority alone. In essence, assuming that it was a fair and above-board referendum in which the cases for and against were quite clearly put and more than 50 per cent. of the potential electorate voted, the electorate's wishes would have to be heeded,

over and above the Secretary of State's desire to step in and apply capping. I am sure that most hon. Members would think that such a suggestion is not unreasonable, subject to the establishment of various standards.

Mr. James Gray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, such is the Labour party's commitment to local government and interest in the Bill, that there is not one Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber?

Sir Paul Beresford: Yes, I had noticed that. I hope that they are watching the debate on television. Much of what we are saying today hurts them. It relates to the very substance of the belief of most Labour Back Benchers. I hope that they are watching so that they can ponder on that when they come to vote.
In summary, this group of proposals, including new clause 6, seeks, in a generally helpful way, to bring some reasonableness and reality to the vicious and bitter core of the Bill.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 1, 84 and 85. I shall also deal briefly with amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
Amendment No. 84 removes the subsection on commencement. It appears to have the same effect as our amendment No. 39, tabled in Committee, in that it delays for a year the implementation of council tax benefit subsidy limitation. Amendment No. 85 seeks to remove the Government's amendment, also tabled in Committee, introducing modifications for the financial year 1999–2000. Both amendments concern the iniquitous council tax benefit clawback proposals.
The council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme is designed to limit the amount of council tax benefit subsidy paid to local authorities if they levy a council tax increase that the Government regard as excessive, irrespective of whether the increase was due to the local authority or to adverse changes in Government grant. The penalty works on a sliding scale: a council that increases its bill by 5 per cent. will have to find one eighth of the additional benefit bill, while one that increases its bill by 8 per cent. will have to find the entire additional amount. As a result, bills will have to rise still further, bringing more people into the benefit system. Councils with a very low proportion of people on council tax benefit will experience minimal effects, but for those with a large number of people on council tax benefit the impact will be extensive, forcing them to impose high council tax increases or to cut services or both. It will result in the poorest areas being hit the hardest and in council tax payers meeting the cost of national welfare benefits.
The scheme may result in an authority paying at or even below the standard spending assessment—which is what the Government consider it needs to spend to provide a standard level of service—and still losing council tax benefit subsidy. Although parish and town councils are not included in the scheme, the effects of their decisions may lead to districts losing council tax benefit subsidy. Another effect is that council tax collection and the collection of poll tax arrears in one year may affect an authority's council tax benefit subsidy limitation threshold in a subsequent year.

Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the precepts that parishes


might set can affect district councils. Does he know whether the Government have made further progress in tracking down the parish councils, as I understand that in Committee they were unable to supply a list?

Mr. Sanders: I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the important question posed by my hon. Friend.
The view of the Labour-dominated Local Government Association is that even if, despite the effects that I have mentioned, the Government still go ahead with the scheme, it should be postponed for a year. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 84 and 85.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Local Government Association, the former Labour leader of Newcastle city council, Sir Jeremy Beecham, commented that the council tax benefit subsidy regime would
mean the nearly poor paying for the really poor"?

Mr. Sanders: As I have already explained, that is precisely what will happen.
Amendment No. 1 is identical to amendment No. 195, tabled in Committee, although it affects a different line in the Bill. The previous amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is in his place. The arguments advanced were that local government had suffered under 18 years of Conservative Government; that the new Government were attempting to rebuild a relationship of trust between local government and central Government; and that although the Government still needed certain reserve powers, they would not need them indefinitely.
4.45 pm
The Liberal Democrats believe that local government suffered under the previous Government. Even some of those from the previous Government admit that. We happily concede that the new Government genuinely believe that they are attempting to rebuild a relationship of trust with local government, but they need to give a date for the phasing-out of capping if they want to establish such a reputation.
Capping should have ended the day after the general election. That is what local councillors expected. Labour councillors thought that it was going to happen, but it has not. We believe that capping should end as soon as possible. Amendment No. 1 would end capping by 2005. Many would say that that is too late. I hope that those who choose to vote against the amendment will do so because they believe that capping should be phased out earlier. Sadly for Labour Members, I do not think that the Government Whips will allow them to put that spin on their vote.
We know what the Minister is likely to say. The Government view has been that capping is needed to defend the national interest. Ministers have argued that they have a responsibility to retain reserve powers to protect local council tax payers. That is a strange argument, because it contradicts what Labour Members said in the House and outside before the election. Labour won many friends in local government for defending local democracy against the Conservative Government's capping rules.
That leads to the second argument for the claimed central Government responsibility to protect local council tax payers. We elect local councillors to run local councils, but, like the previous Government, this Government do not trust the voters to make the right choices—and nor do they trust their councillors to protect council tax payers. Of course, they are right not to trust the electoral system to facilitate a truly democratic result, but the lack of a proportional electoral system is not a good enough argument for retaining the reserve power to cap.
The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between central and local government. Is it to be based on trust in local people and local democracy, or on suspicion and fear of the cap? If the Government are sure that their best value policies for local government will be so successful that capping will fall by the wayside naturally, why not set a date for phasing it out? Even the Conservatives have seen the light on capping. Their leader sees the restoration of the power and independence of local government as an important part of the platform for renewing his party's popularity. I hope that Conservative Members will support our amendments.
Amendment No. 1 would set a deadline of 2005 for the end of capping. It is a sunset clause first proposed by a Labour Member. By accepting the amendment, the Government could demonstrate that they are genuine when they claim to be rebuilding trust between central and local government. It would show that they were confident that best value and other proposals were likely to work as they have claimed. To do otherwise would be to admit that the previous Government were right, even though the Conservatives have changed their views on capping since the election. The politics may be topsy-turvy, but the principle of local people using the ballot box to determine local needs is important, and I urge hon. Members to support it.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). I was grateful for his interest in the renewal of my party during this brief period of opposition. He was right to draw attention to capping. He referred to the recent comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that our policy is to move away from capping. The hon. Gentleman said that the situation was topsy-turvy. It is ironic that while my party is moving away from capping, the Labour party in government is moving to embrace it.
I pay tribute to the excellent and authoritative manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) dealt with the amendments, and particularly new clause 6. He was right to talk about a heavy-handed and subjective set of capping rules. From his vast experience, he was able to demonstrate the perverse results of the proposals in relation to individual authorities. He put up a spirited and effective defence of those Conservative-controlled councils which, year after year, have delivered good services at reasonable prices, and are continuing to do so—despite suffering under the new regime.
New clause 6 is a novel and exciting concept; I suppose we must call it the Milton Keynes clause. I am not saying that I necessarily endorse the Milton Keynes experiment, but it has attractive features that should make all of us take stock of how we approach council tax,


local government spending and finance and—above all—capping. From that point of view, it has some attractive features.
We cannot allow local councillors or any elected people to abdicate responsibility entirely. Why elect local councillors at all if they are not there to make the big decisions? Surely local people should have a voice; whether through their elected representatives every year—as tends to be the case in local authorities such as mine—or slightly less often, or possibly through the limited use of local referendums, as happens in Milton Keynes.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about the Milton Keynes experiment was that it was a matter not of the council and the people, but of the Secretary of State and the people? The people of Milton Keynes decided to allow their council tax to rise by more than the Secretary of State would have allowed it to rise under the capping regulations—thereby fundamentally undermining the capping regulations.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Torbay said that if the measure is not to have a sunset provision, it is equally valid to argue for another way of ameliorating the effect—in this case, by letting local people have a voice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) will have the chance to develop that point in the debate.
There are wider issues—not least the promises made not just to local government, but to the British people before the election. In its 1997 manifesto, Labour promised the abolition of "crude and universal capping". It is fair to say that that was met with almost universal approbation throughout local government. When the Government announced their provisional caps for 1998–99 in December 1997—and subsequently capped Derbyshire county council—they confirmed that 1998–99 would be the last year of universal capping.
It is a feature of the Government that not everything in the manifesto comes to pass, and that not everything that comes to pass was in the manifesto. In Committee, the Minister conceded that the proposals were not in the manifesto.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Not true.

Mr. Waterson: If the Minister wants to correct what I have said, I will happily give way.

Ms Armstrong: It was clear in the manifesto that in abolishing crude and universal capping, a Labour Government, if elected, would retain reserve powers. We have done that. Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not capping.

Mr. Waterson: I do not necessarily disagree, save to say that to describe the powers as reserve capping powers is to stretch the word "reserve" significantly.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) put it to the Minister that the proposal to have council tax benefit subsidy limitation was not in the Labour manifesto. When my hon. Friend the Member for

North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pressed the point, the Minister rightly—it is a subtly different point, and it is important to get it right—said:
No, it was not. However,
she continued, ever the mistress of understatement,
the Government are doing several things that go beyond manifesto commitments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 465.]
I think, however, that she has claimed public support for the measure in the run-up to the general election, which cannot be right.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is right about the reserve powers, which relate specifically to the provisions on subjective capping, but my hon. Friend is right when he talks about crude and universal capping, which applies to the council tax benefit subsidy limitation—or capping, by any other name.

Mr. Waterson: I am sure that the Minister and I will both be relieved to be right, but on different subjects.
It is worth repeating the powerful comment of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). It expresses in words that I could not find the extent of the sense of betrayal felt not only in local government but in Labour-controlled local government. He said:
If a council in the poorer group of local authorities tried to increase its council tax over its budget requirements to sustain services, the application of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would be devastating because of the clawback of the rate support grant."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1152.]
That is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, the nearly poor would be subsidising the poor in some areas.
Before, we had crude and universal capping, which was bad—there is an element of "Animal Farm" about this—and now we have what some of the boffins call refined capping, which is good. It is really a question of what one calls it. Capping is the policy that dare not speak its name. The word "capping" does not even appear in the title or in other parts of the Bill, as has been pointed out in an amendment.
I did not have the pleasure and privilege of serving in Committee on the Bill, but I appeared for the official Opposition in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation when we considered the crucial statutory instrument that underpins the Bill. Any casual observer reading the title of the instrument would not immediately recognise it as an attempt to bring back a form of capping. It is the Local Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (England) Regulations 1999. The title does not give much away.
That measure, along with the part of the Bill that relates to it, does not have a friend in the world. I put it to the Minister in Committee that not one authority or organisation connected with local government had a good word to say about the proposals. At the last count—the Minister is welcome to correct me if the figure has gone up—129 councils and groups of councils had expressed their opposition to it.
The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and other right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee that the proposals act in a perverse fashion. Why? Because the highly geared local authorities


are those most affected. For example, Mole Valley would be affected 10 times less by the regulations than Liverpool, Hackney or Newham. Indeed, it is a pity that Labour Members who represent the areas that will be seriously affected cannot even be bothered to come to the Chamber to listen to the debate. I have given up hope of their seeking to participate, but they could make the effort, on behalf of those who send them here, to listen to the problems that they are likely to have to face.

5 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: They have been sent away.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend may be right. It was pointed out in the Committee considering the regulations that 19 of the 22 poorest councils would be hit the hardest and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that the main burden will fall on people in property bands A and B.
I will not detain the House today with a detailed discussion of the formulae and the calculations—

Mr. Burstow: Shame.

Mr. Waterson: I am open to persuasion. Suffice it to say that the Local Government Association got it right when it said:
The scheme will impact unfairly on different parts of the country … the worst hit being those with the highest proportion of low value property and the highest percentage of benefit recipients … It will be felt hardly at all in prosperous areas of the South East. It will have much more of an impact in inner London and on Merseyside.
In that sense, I am not speaking on behalf of my constituents in Eastbourne or for my hon. Friends' constituents in other parts of the south-east: we are speaking for the constituents of hon. Members who represent the worst affected areas. It is worth listing them because they include Liverpool, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Manchester, Newham, Islington, Lambeth, Waltham Forest, Knowsley and Southwark.

Mr. Oliver Heald: All Labour.

Mr. Waterson: As my hon. Friend says, those authorities have one thing in common: they are controlled by the Labour party or return Labour Members of Parliament. Where are their representatives during this debate?

Ms Armstrong: What about being non-partisan?

Mr. Waterson: If the Minister wishes to intervene, she knows that I am generous about giving way, but she must not keep up a running commentary during my speech.
As I said in the Committee considering the regulations, the disparities will get worse in future. The LGA put it graphically:
the scheme could become the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge.

A well-behaved authority that tries to do well under the regulations will not get any benefit. From the Government's point of view, it is a win-win situation. An authority cannot prise more money out of the Government by doing better than expected under the regulations.

Mr. Sanders: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is another example of a stealth tax that will shift the burden of taxation on to council tax payers?

Mr. Waterson: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has caught up with the fact that this Government like to do things by stealth. Perhaps one of his more elevated colleagues would care to raise that in one of the Cabinet Committees in which they are involved.
An article in the Local Government Chronicle stated:
One of the starkest examples of how the scheme has a different impact across the country, despite built-in safeguards, is that of Liverpool City Council and Wokingham DC.
It goes on:
Based on each council exceeding the guideline amount for subsidy limitation by 1 per cent. of their Standard Spending Assessments, Liverpool would lose £926,000 and Wokingham would lose just £29,000.
That is incredible.

Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise council tax benefit subsidy limitation. However, does he accept that the regulations that the Government used to introduce it were based on powers established in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which was enacted by a Conservative Administration? They also built on the principle of council housing benefit clawback established by the previous Government.

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the enormous benefit of never having been in power and of having no hope of it. It is always someone else's fault. It would perhaps be kinder to say that the hon. Gentleman implies the benefit of sunset provisions in regulations. If there had been such a provision in 1992, we would not be here today. Of course, we would not be here today, either, if the Government had not pulled stumps last night.
The Bill has the effect of reintroducing capping, although we may not breathe that word. The handful of Labour Members who are here, and any watching on television, must realise that it introduces capping in all but name. I hope that those whose constituencies are most seriously affected will say something, if not to the House, at least to their constituents, to justify their support for the Bill. I hope that some of them will—despite the pressure of the Whips—think twice about supporting the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley gave a good summary of the intent and purport of several amendments. Amendments Nos. 98 and 117 would insert the true name of the Bill and its real effects by referring to limitation and capping. The statutory instrument intimately associated with the Bill could not, as I have said, have had a more misleading title. One has to search for clues as to what the regulations mean.
Amendment No. 1 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Bizarrely, though this is not untypical of that party, it suggests that it is all right to have the regulations


for a period—say, five years—but equally all right not to have them afterwards. I cannot see the logic of that. Either the system is fair and useful, or it is not.

Mr. Sanders: Amendment No. 1 is identical to one tabled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in Committee.

Mr. Waterson: I have not said that we would not vote with the Liberal Democrats on that amendment. Anything, however strange, that waters down the effects or the time scale of the regulations must be worth supporting.
Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 would remove the power to distinguish between individual authorities rather than categories of authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley was right to say that it is invidious to pick on individual authorities. Perhaps that will happen if their names begin with W and they are successfully run by Conservatives in London. Amendment No. 105 is the same.
Adding the Greater London authority to the provisions was debated, if not in the Standing Committee on the Bill, then in another Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley dealt extremely well with a bizarre result of the regulations, which is that authorities that set budgets below SSA can be caught in the net. We have said before that that is something that Ministers should look at again.
We feel sufficiently strongly about amendment No. 84 wish to press it to a Division at a convenient moment. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would take out of clause 29 subsections (7) and (11). That would remove the commencement provision affecting the financial year 1999–2000. In other words, it postpones the provisions, which is entirely right. I agree with what the Liberal Democrat spokesman had to say on that. Apart from anything else, the Local Government Association has been strong and persuasive from the start on the point that these measures are not only wrong and ill thought out but are being introduced far too quickly. It believes that time should be set aside to consult further and consider whether there are other, more sensible ways of achieving the same results in a fairer and more effective way.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 seek to limit the scope of the Secretary of State's powers, as so many of the amendments do. The Bill allows him to cap authorities even if they are spending below the SSA set by the Government. That goes beyond what is fair: it is nonsensical. Our amendments seek to restore the more sensible principles that have hitherto underpinned capping. Councils would be allowed to spend up to one eighth more than SSA before being capped. While local taxpayers would be afforded protection, councils would be allowed to increase spending year on year, but would not be given an incentive to do so in order to protect their base for future increases. Again, that is a sensible attempt to amend the Bill.
Amendment No. 108 would oblige the Secretary of State to take into account the council tax levels of authorities in the same category, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley explained. Thus London boroughs would be compared with London boroughs shire districts with shire districts, and so on.
Amendments Nos. 113, 109, 111, 110, 114, 115 and 117 would ensure that local authorities were treated equally by the capping system. They would require the Secretary of State to determine categories of authority to which various capping criteria would apply and oblige him to announce those criteria in advance. The amendments are intended to reduce the arbitrary nature of the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill, and to provide local authorities with greater certainty that they will not be singled out for special treatment by the Government.
Nothing that the Government have done in their time in office or that Ministers have said during debates on the Bill gives us any confidence that they will be above singling out authorities whose record or complexion they disapprove of and penalising them under the provisions in the Bill. We think that it is too much of a temptation for Ministers in this or any Government to have such powers. The powers should therefore be reduced or watered down.
The LGA speaks for all political complexions across local government. It argued long and hard for a time limit on the capping scheme, which was rejected by the Government. In its latest briefing, it has said that it remains opposed to the present council tax benefit limitation proposals for the reasons that it spells out. It says that the scheme will
hit the poorest areas hardest.
It is Government's responsibility to meet the cost of welfare benefits.
The public's understanding of council tax increases will be further diminished rather than enhanced.
That must have a knock-on effect on local democracy. The LGA brief continues:
The guideline increases could be seen as a direct substitute for crude and universal capping.
The scheme is not justified on grounds of administrative efficiency".
So no one who knows anything about local government at any level has a kind word to say about the proposals. Not only that, but the Bill is being rushed through. The debate is being guillotined today, as we have discussed—it is not a proper matter to return to. How typical of the Government's attitude not only to the Bill but to Parliament in general.
5.15 pm
The LGA, optimistic to the last, is still talking about continuing discussions with the Government as to how the scheme will work, with a view to persuading the Government to drop or modify the scheme in future years. I wish it well, but on the basis of performance to date, I have to say, "Fat chance." It concludes by saying:
Although we recognise that they will most probably now pass into law … the Association will continue to oppose the provisions in clauses 28 and 29 to retain capping powers and to localise part of the cost of council tax benefit.
In conclusion, it seems to me from reading the debates in Committee and in the statutory instrument Committee, and all the discussions inside and outside this place, that the Government have comprehensively lost the argument every single time. Why cannot they be big enough, with their vast majority and all the panoply of new Labour and spin doctors, to say, "Yes, we got it wrong. We want to do it differently. We have heard what people say. We have heard the united voice of local government. We are going to look at this again."

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to participate in a debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who followed me as leader of Wandsworth council. It is appropriate that we should both be able to point out to the Minister the absurd fallacy of the percentages argument in relation to the weightwatcher. If a weightwatcher weighs 10 stone and increases his weight by 10 per cent., that is an increase of 1 stone. Has he done better or worse than someone of 20 stone who increases his weight by 1 stone, an increase of only 5 per cent? The Minister suggests that someone who is already 20 stone and increases his weight by 1 stone is doing better than someone who is 10 stone and increases his weight by 1 stone. That is absolute nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley referred to Wandsworth's 20-year record of achievement. It is appropriate to remind the House of the catalyst that gave the Conservatives in Wandsworth the opportunity to control the council. In its last year in office, the Labour party in Wandsworth moved a guillotine motion to restrict debate in the council chamber. There was such outrage in the borough at the fact that, in an authority of 55 councillors and aldermen, the Labour party had chosen to use the guillotine against 15 Conservatives in opposition that, a few months later, the Conservatives were swept into office. The Labour party lost and, as we know, it is still in opposition in Wandsworth more than 21 years later. Those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the way in which the Labour Government have promoted the guillotine motion today may take some consolation from the fact that a guillotine gave Conservatives in Wandsworth the opportunity to ensure 20 years or more of successful Conservative control.
Wandsworth never had to resort to referendums because the councillors kept in touch with their electors. They listened and responded and provided quality core services at affordable prices.
Schedule 1, tucked away at the back of the Bill, is a provision of 15 pages which enables the Secretary of State to introduce what is not described as crude and universal capping. In my submission, instead of being crude, it is complex. Instead of being universal, it is arbitrary. Complex and arbitrary capping is even worse than crude and universal capping.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Am I alone in thinking that crude capping was at least predictable? It was clear when the Secretary of State was going to cap, whereas I am mystified as to what the criteria will be under the schedule.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. The criteria seem to be that whatever the Minister decides goes. That is an arbitrary use of power; through the ages, dictators have always wanted to take such power to themselves and that is what the Government are taking to themselves in the Bill.
The Government are obsessed with second-guessing councils on whether they are responding to the wishes of the electorate. An experiment being carried out in Dorset is relevant to the proposal in new clause 6 that would prevent Governments from imposing a cap on a council that had carried out a referendum on its council tax proposals and had won the endorsement of its electors.

This year, there are extremely large council tax increases in Dorset. Dorset county council has chosen to increase the council tax by 7.9 per cent and the Dorset police authority is increasing its precept by 9.2 per cent.—the third highest amount among county police authorities. In part of my constituency—the East Dorset district council area—the consequence of those two decisions and the council tax imposed by the district council is that the average council tax payer in East Dorset will pay a massive £858 in the coming year. That will be the 11th highest council tax bill for householders anywhere in the country.
That is the consequence of having a county council, district council and police authority that are all Liberal controlled. The sad thing is that the county council had the idea of seeking the endorsement of the electorate for the 7.9 per cent. increase in council tax. One cannot criticise the council for holding consultations but, when it did so, it did not get the answer that it wanted; it ignored the result and went ahead with the 7.9 per cent. increase that it had intended to impose on the people of Dorset all along. Fortunately, new clause 6 does not introduce such a system. It would make it incumbent on an authority to accept the verdict of any referendum, if it wanted to impose a substantial council tax increase.
In Dorset, the council decided to consult a few focus groups, comprising individuals who had been carefully selected—mainly, but not exclusively, by Liberal Democrats. The groups included many people who worked for the council, but who did not live in the area that was to be affected by the increases. It was only after pressure from Conservatives in local government in Dorset that the county council expanded the consultation process to include people who were readers of local newspapers. It was even accepted that people who wrote to county hall would have their views taken into account.
Having gathered all that information, the council then had the gall to reject the verdict on the basis that a large number of those who responded were pensioners. Those people are on fixed incomes and resented the fact that they would have to pay an increase in their council tax that was substantially above the rate of inflation, as a result of which they would have to cut back on other items of household expenditure. At its meeting, the Liberal-controlled county council dismissed those representations from pensioners on the grounds that they did not really count. That was the most appalling snub and insult to a key group in Dorset; they are people who have worked hard throughout their lives and have chosen to spend their twilight years in the county, where they make a major contribution to the community. Why should their views count for less than the views of others?
New clause 6 commends itself to me because it makes it clear that referendums would have to be held on a universal basis, reinforcing democracy in those council areas where the local authority does not keep in regular contact with the wishes of the people. I support the new clause and condemn the way in which the Government are imposing a new capping regime on local authorities. Before the election, the Labour party suggested that it was in favour of expanding local democracy, but in practice the Government are doing the reverse.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I shall speak on new clause 6. If the doctrine espoused at a late stage of yesterday evening by probably the most impressive Member on the Labour Benches, the right hon. Member


for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—that there is no point in sitting in the Chamber for a long time because the Government will get their business through anyway—were carried to its conclusion, it would be entirely footling to make speeches in this place. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman came to that conclusion and suggested that the Opposition should restrict themselves to engaging in what he called a five-year election campaign.

Ms Armstrong: He did not say that at all.

Mr. Letwin: Speaking from a sedentary position—as she has often done throughout these debates—the Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that. As a matter of fact, the record shows that he did, and, as he is a deep thinker, he may have expressed a view that is widely held by Labour Members. Nevertheless, I retain a touching faith in the parliamentary process. I hope that it is not naive and that it may become more important if the House comes to its senses and realises that it needs to adjust its proceedings, so that it has an impact on Bills rather than merely discussing them.
New clause 6 is a vital clause and the whole House—indeed posterity—will owe a great debt to my hon. Friends who introduced it. I hope, too, that the Conservative party will realise that it owes them a debt, because I hope that the essence of the clause, if not the detail, will be accepted in due time as party policy. The reason lies in the origins of capping. I freely admitted last night, and continue to admit, that capping was a mistaken policy from the start. The then Prime Minister my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and others justified the policy on the grounds that it was impossible to leave to local democracy decisions about the level of expenditure, which could have a macro-economic impact, when most of the people in an area did not even bother to turn up at the polls, and when many people could be hugely disadvantaged by high rates of the then domestic rate because they were among the few people who paid it. My right hon. and noble Friend adduced examples of councils such as Hackney, which had relatively few inhabitants who actually paid any domestic rate after various subsidies were taken into account, and which could raise its domestic rate, more or less without limit, affecting only those voters who never voted for it anyway.
It is important that the Government should realise that the initial argument for capping was a democratic deficit. The new clause would reverse that democratic deficit and ensure that there would not be capping if the majority of the population turned up at the polls and made it clear that they favoured the level of expenditure proposed by the council. In other words, new clause 6 undermines the only logic—although they have never expressed any—that the Government could be using.
I hope that, even if it has no impact on the Government, who obviously do not intend to pay the slightest attention to the debate, the profound significance of the new clause will register on the minds of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because it might form the basis of a highly productive train of thought about local government policy and the relationship between local government and central Government. If the Conservatives became the party that reasserted the need to allow councils, where there is a genuine democratic desire on

the part of their population to raise taxes, to do so, we would be using democracy to overcome the inherent deficiencies that were in the system when we first introduced capping.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am fascinated to see the new Conservative doctrine on local government unfolding before our eyes. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—judging by his analysis so far, he is—that the referendum principle should apply to anything a council might want to do, regardless of the initial policy of central Government?

Mr. Letwin: No. I shall not dwell on the matter in detail, save to say that there is a specific point that differs from that which applies in respect of anything else that local government does. We are talking about central Government interfering grossly with the actions of a democratically elected authority. Our view is that, where local democracy is shown on a wide scale to yield a certain result, such intervention should not occur.

Ms Armstrong: I: am delighted to be able to respond to a debate on the Bill, and I welcome hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to these deliberations. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I welcome his conversion to democracy that is not limited to four-yearly elections, and his recognition of the ideas that the Government set out in our White Paper to encourage far more public consultation, which are at the centre of all our proposals. Indeed, the draft Bill presented today includes specific proposals on referendums on the form of governance used in localities.
New clause 6 would impose limitations on the use of the reserve powers so that they could not be used following a referendum in which a simple majority had endorsed the council tax and at least 50 per cent. of the electorate had voted. The endorsement by local people of an authority's budget would be consistent with our modernising agenda and our drive to encourage local authorities to engage the local community more effectively; and such consultation or endorsement may influence any decision on whether to use our reserve power. However, a referendum is only one form of consultation that a local government body might choose to undertake, so we do not think it appropriate to put referendums into the Bill as the sole form of consultation to be used.
This morning, I met members of a citizens panel that is used effectively by the local authority. They were adamant about the importance of their ability to debate issues and to form an understanding of the complexities with which councils frequently have to deal. They are considering ways of ensuring that other people in their area do the same. Although they welcomed our proposals on referendums, they wanted to maintain the use of other forms of consultation.
The Bill already allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to determine categories of authorities taking into account any information considered relevant. The extent to which a local authority has taken steps to consult and involve its local community may well be considered relevant information for that purpose, and I


hope that it will be. Conservative Members have referred to the referendum in Milton Keynes. I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) in the Chamber a short while ago, but he has gone now. The Bill allows deliberations such as that to have an influence on the Government, whereas existing legislation passed under the Conservative Government, does not allow us to take into account such consultation, because it cuts out any such considerations. It is precisely because we want such considerations to be part of the process to decide whether or not capping takes place that we have introduced the Bill in its current form.

Mr. Sanders: Does the Minister accept that an expensive full referendum of all of the people is not the only way in which a local authority could go about public consultation, and that focus groups might suffice to test the public's views on what was needed?

Ms Armstrong: I have spent about five minutes saying that other forms of consultation are important and that central Government should not, in the Bill, restrict an authority's choice of the form of public consultation it wants to employ. Consultation should be thorough, but different methods or even a combination of methods may be appropriate at certain times.
Over the next few years, wide-ranging reform and modernisation of local government will take place, so it is impossible to predict how central Government will use their reserve powers in future. We hope that we do not have to use them—indeed, we have constructed the powers with that hope in mind—but we need the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in future years.

Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, so it is right that he, as a Member of Parliament, should attend these debates on the Bill. As was spelled out clearly in the White Paper, we are trying to provide for a more flexible relationship between central and local government, so that local government has greater control. Only when a local authority is clearly out of step with local people's interests and flouting the national interest shall we intervene, but we need the flexibility provided by the Bill to do so. Having explained that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that, precisely because of the lack of predictability that she describes, it is proper to insert in the Bill the use of a referendum as a decision-making mechanism—not as a means of consultation, but as a proper means of making a decision and holding the Government to account?

Ms Armstrong: The idea is to hold the council to account through a referendum, but I shall let that pass.

Mr. Burstow: To return to the question of different forms of consultation, we welcome the Government's openness on the range of methods of consultation that could be used. However, in considering what is relevant, will the Secretary of State adopt different views on the various forms of consultation and give different weighting

to each? Will he give different weighting from one year to another? We need to know that, and so do local authorities. If the Secretary of State can accept as relevant one local authority having consulted a focus group or held a referendum, but completely disregard the same actions taken by another local authority, the system of consultation will fall into disrepute.

Ms Armstrong: We have to make sure that the consultations carried out are those that have enabled the widest group of people to make representations, and that they have been carried out in a clear, straightforward and honest way. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will know that I made it clear in Standing Committee that the Government would have to take into account, for example, the nature of the questions asked and the turnout in a referendum. Those are matters to which we would have regard in considering whether there had been a genuine attempt to engage with local people in coming to the decisions that were taken. We would want to see that there had been that full engagement and that the council had taken an honest approach to consultation and any more direct decision taking that it was offering to the public.

Mr. Sanders: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I want to facilitate debate, but I do not want to be accused of taking up too much time.

Mr. Sanders: I appreciate the Minister giving way again. We are dealing with an important point. Is she saying that it is not the quantitative but the qualitative value of the consultation that will be taken into consideration?

Ms Armstrong: I think that I have expressed our approach as fully as possible. I would not accept one focus group. Someone may tell me, "This is a very high-quality focus group," but I would not think that that was the basis for a high-quality consultation exercise. However, I do not want to be pushed into being so rigid as to say that, for example, a rural area that had developed a good devolved system of involving local people had to proceed in a certain way. Clearly, such an area would want to act in some respects in a different manner from an inner-city authority.
I do not want to be pushed into a position where we in central Government determine the method and local government feels that it has to get through our hoops. I want local government itself to be serious about how it consults and engages the public on one of the most important decisions that it has to take, which is the level of council tax that it will be setting. That is inevitably closely linked to the best value aspects of the Bill.
We want the flexibility to be able to respond to changing circumstances. We do not wish to restrict the principles that could be implemented. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is also not in his place, pressed the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on what would happen to Derbyshire. Had the Bill been in place, we could have brought in representatives of Derbyshire county council, talked to them and made it clear that in our view what they had done was excessive, but that we did not want to subject the authority to re-billing. We could have made it clear


that we were giving them notice that if they did not take account of our position in the following year, the council would be designated and that council tax capping would be implemented.
That, to me, seems to be the right sort of flexibility between central and local government. Far from being more draconian, it involves engaging in mature debate with local government on the basis of clear criteria and recognising that local government is grown up. It would be giving local government the chance to amend what it is doing in future budget setting so that it can come within the national criteria of which it should be taking account.
I move on to amendments No. 98 and No. 117, which seek to change the heading of clause 28 and the heading of part 2 of schedule 2 so that they read:
Regulation and Limitation (Capping) of Council Tax and Precepts".
It is sometimes helpful for Opposition Members to suggest amendments to improve Parliamentary Counsel's drafting. However, we take the view that the regulation of council tax that is referred to in the heading includes the new reserve powers and the limitation of council tax benefit subsidy. As one word is to be preferred to four, we prefer to leave the drafting as it is.
5.45 pm
As I have said before, council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not capping through the back door. Authorities can set budgets above the guidelines if they wish, provided that they do not set budgets that are considered excessive and would require the use of the reserve power. In fact, four out of five councils in this budgetary round have set increases that are different from their guidelines. I believe that they should be able to continue to do that. The confusion of Opposition Members about capping and council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not helpful to councils when they are seeking to set their budgets. I believe that the restrictions that are identified in the amendments are unnecessary and I hope that the Opposition will not press them.
Amendment No. 1 would put a time limit on the use of the new reserve powers to limit council tax increases, ending their use after 1 April 2005. Official Opposition Members made it clear in Committee that they would re-table their amendment so that it might be debated on the Floor of the House. Liberal Democrat Members made it clear in Committee that they opposed any capping of local authorities' budgets. The official Opposition are still somewhat unsure about where they are going in this instance. However, I welcome the confessional conservatism on the Opposition Benches. I often feel that we should be here as members of the cloth taking the real confessions of Conservative Members. I have a deep respect for confession.

Sir Paul Beresford: On confessions, I would like the Minister to be selective and subjective.

Ms Armstrong: I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see the end of capping and is not one of the confessional Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrats made it clear this week that they think the Government have no role to play in protecting local taxpayers from irresponsible increases in taxes.

I happen to disagree. The Government disagree, and we made that clear in the Labour party's manifesto. We are putting our money where our mouth is on the basis of that manifesto. The Government have a role to play and we cannot shirk our responsibilities. I made it clear in Committee—I think Opposition Members listened but did not agree—that these are reserve powers and we will hold them in reserve.
As I have been at pains to emphasise, we are working in partnership with local government to improve and modernise it. We therefore hope and expect that we will use the reserve powers increasingly rarely, and not at all by the year 2005, if not earlier. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that some local authorities may decide to act irresponsibly. If they do, we need to be able to protect their local taxpayers. For that, we need to retain the reserve powers. I ask Opposition Members to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments No. 101, 102, 105 and 106 would provide that the factors referred to by the criteria used to decide whether the budget requirement is excessive for the council tax benefit limitation scheme must apply to categories of authorities and not to different authorities. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) is rather frightened that we would be partisan. I hope that that is not because of his experience of exercising powers in the past. I can assure him that we wish to be anything but partisan. Indeed, the list that was read out by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) demonstrated clearly that we are not partisan. I would say to Opposition Members that the subsidy limitation kicks in only as a result of a local council's decision, not a Government decision. Many of the councils that the hon. Member for Eastbourne identified have taken decisions that bring them in well below the guideline. They have taken that decision and, therefore, their council tax payers will not suffer in the way that he mentioned because they have taken decisions that keep them outside the guideline.

Mr. Waterson: The right hon. Lady correctly makes the point that councils can make individual decisions to try to protect themselves from those provisions, but that is a separate matter. Given that we are all in confessional mode, is she now admitting that the 10 councils whose names I read out, most of which are Labour controlled, are most likely to be affected on the basis of the calculations?

Ms Armstrong: We are getting into difficult territory. I am not of the Catholic faith and confession is not part of my good Methodist tradition. I am trying to tell the truth, which is that it is up to the council to decide its council tax levels. If it exceeds a guideline level, we expect it to share with national taxpayers the burden of council tax benefit. The councils in the list that the hon. Gentleman read out have overwhelmingly decided not to exceed the guideline.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is carefully glossing over the fact that a council's decision on the level of its council tax for a particular year may be related to its SSA and revenue support grant, which are in the Government's hands.

Ms Armstrong: Of course I acknowledge that. However, given that this year, all councils received at


least as much as they did last year, and that the increase in the overall Government grant to local authorities through RSG and the uniform business rate was higher than the hon. Gentleman was ever able to deliver, his point is a little bogus.
We used the same criteria and factors for all authorities. However, some authorities thought that we should have used different criteria and factors for different authorities, and they made representations to us to that effect. Some district authorities, for example, thought that they should be treated differently from counties because districts are responsible for collecting arrears of community charge, and that affects the level of council tax set in districts but not in counties. Other authorities argued that particular individual circumstances applied to them and that those should be taken into account.
It is possible that in future years there might be good reasons for differentiating. There may be an argument for treating an individual authority differently because of its particular circumstances. We discussed that in Committee. In accordance with normal principles, the Secretary of State would be required to act fairly, but fairness may require different treatment. That is one of the problems with the working of the current law. We need to have the ability to act accordingly and respond to particular needs in exceptional cases. We would not be able to do that if we accepted the amendments, so I ask hon. Members not to press them.
Amendment No. 103 seeks to give local authorities that budget below SSA protection from the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, where the criteria refer, as they do for 1999–2000, to the budget for the year beginning in 1998. Conservative Members seem to have forgotten the principle underlying that scheme. Perhaps I should remind them of it.
When council tax rises, so do the costs of council tax benefit, and that cost is borne by the local taxpayer. Where there is a large increase in council tax, we do not believe that the national taxpayer should pay for the costs arising from those local decisions, and that is the aim of the scheme. The national taxpayer will continue to bear significant costs, but the scheme would limit them.

Mr. Burstow: That provokes a significant question about the application of that principle. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been writing to local authorities, urging them fully to spend their education SSAs. In doing so, some authorities, at least in principle, could exceed the guideline and, as a consequence, face the Minister's wrath and have benefit clawed back. Surely that is wrong because it sends the wrong signal to councils that the Government want to spend on education.

Ms Armstrong: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. This year's criteria allow an increase of either 4.5 per cent. or an amount commensurate with the increase in SSA. An increase in SSA that is higher than 4.5 per cent. is accounted for.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: No. The hon. Gentleman is just enjoying himself again.
I assume that the purpose of amendments Nos. 84 and 85 is to prevent the scheme applying for 1999–2000. As I have already explained several times, the clause simply provides for regulations that will require major participating authorities exceeding the guideline to make payments to billing authorities. It does not affect the establishment of the scheme as a whole.
We have already made regulations to change the tax-setting equation so that the local authority contribution to council tax benefit costs is raised from council tax. Councils took that into account when setting their council tax for 1999–2000. The amendments would therefore have little effect, and I ask that hon. Members not to press them.
Amendment No. 42 seeks to exempt from capping councils that budget below their standard spending assessment. We made it clear in the White Paper that we would be taking reserve powers that allowed us to cap in those circumstances.
The new reserve capping powers in the Bill are designed to enable the Government to step in and protect council tax payers if a local authority increases its council tax unreasonably. Standard spending assessments are a simple measure that the Government use as a basis for distributing the revenue support grant. They have no more significance than that. It follows that the relationship between a council's budget and its standard spending assessment has no bearing on whether a particular year's increase is deemed to be excessive.
We need only consider some councils' behaviour in setting council tax rates for 1999–2000 to realise that. South Cambridgeshire has increased its council tax by 175 per cent.; Tewkesbury's increase is 49 per cent.; and Wandsworth, which Conservative Members have mentioned, has made a 21.5 per cent. increase. All those councils are budgeting below SSA, but making large increases in council tax.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister has touched on a point on which I should like clarification. The significance of council tax increases must lie in the increase in money rather than the percentage increase. When the Minister considers her restrictions, will she examine percentages or money?

Ms Armstrong: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman intervenes on that point. Perhaps he would have a word with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who was complaining that Dorset council did not take account of people on fixed incomes who are affected year on year by the percentage increase. That is why we seek to have the power to impose restrictions.
I am not pre-empting any decisions that will be made this year, but it is reasonable that the Government should have the power to intervene if the level of increase makes it necessary. People would think that we were strange if we did not seek such a power. It is important that the Government take seriously their responsibility to local taxpayers, and we shall continue to do so. I hope, given those explanations, that hon. Members will withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 43 is designed to exempt from capping any council that spends less than 12.5 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. The Conservatives seem to be trying to reintroduce their policy of capping councils


that budget at more than 12.5 per cent. over SSA. This is another amendment that demonstrates the schizophrenia of the official Opposition, with some Opposition Members being confessional and some not. However, there is a slightly different twist—no authority budgeting below that level will be capped. That is a change from the situation when the Conservatives were in power, but I suspect that that is where they got the figure of 12.5 per cent. Most of the authorities that they capped would have been exempt under this principle.
6 pm
Standard spending assessments are no more than a measure that the Government use to distribute revenue support grant. Our new reserve capping powers are designed to protect council tax payers. We are not prepared to shirk our responsibility. The amendment would remove from two thirds of councils the possibility of Government intervention. That is not what people want.
I assume that amendment No. 108 is intended to make it difficult for the Secretary of State to apply the reserve powers to local authorities with a low band D council tax, and to limit him to using his reserve powers in relation to those authorities with the highest band D council tax within a category. We have had this debate before. I do not understand what Opposition Members are trying to achieve. Would they be happy for such authorities to make massive increases in their council tax, to the detriment of the council tax payers in their area? We are not prepared to accept that. Again, I ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 would prevent the Secretary of State from determining categories of authorities, and thus from applying different sets of principles to each category. We have discussed this on several occasions. I used the basis of the argument in response to a previous amendment, so the House understands the Government's view. We want to make sure that we move at the pace of the best, and that we are not held back by the worst, which would have been the effect of the sunset clause that the Opposition moved yesterday. We want to give powers and opportunities to the best. We do not want to go down the rigid path towards which the Opposition are pushing us through these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 109, 111 and 110 would require the Secretary of State to determine categories of authorities. That rather contradicts some of the arguments that we have heard. I do not believe that the amendments would be helpful. The Secretary of State may not need to determine categories. It may be appropriate to apply the same principle to all authorities. We have heard many examples today in which that would not be appropriate. That is why we need flexibility. I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.
Amendment No. 115 would limit the information that the Secretary of State may take into account in determining categories of authorities—

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot help noticing that the Minister has been speaking longer—32 minutes—than any Back Bencher during last

night's debate, about which she complained so much. She said that that was a filibuster. Is she filibustering her own Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Ms Armstrong: I am trying to get through the notes. This is a large group of amendments, and I have taken a substantial number of interventions. I have been responding to the debate. Opposition Members know that they were offered negotiations through the usual channels, but they refused to come and talk about what would be possible. They have created the problem.
Amendment No. 115 is unnecessary. Every Secretary of State must consider the reasonableness of his use of powers granted by statute. 1 cannot think of circumstances in which information that was relevant would not also be reasonable. The amendment adds nothing of substance to the intention of the Bill. It is not needed, and I ask hon. Members not to press it.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Government are adopting the same approach as in Committee—nice words, then comes the crunch. New clause 6 and the amendments were intended not to stop capping, but to ease the pain. I shall therefore press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:  Ayes 170, Noes 335.

Division No. 130]
[6.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Collins, Tim


Allan, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Corrnack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dafis, Cynog


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baker, Norman
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Baldry, Tony



Ballard, Jackie
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel


Blunt, Crispin
Faber, David


Body, Sir Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fearn, Ronnie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Forsythe, Clifford


Brady, Graham
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brake, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gibb, Nick


Burnett, John
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Cable, Dr Vincent
Greenway, John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Grieve, Dominic


(NE Fife)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


(Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hancock, Mike


Clappison, James
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, John






Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hunter, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith,
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spring, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lansley, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Letwin, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livsey, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Loughton, Tim
Townend, John


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wallace, James


Malins, Humfrey
Walter, Robert


Maples, John
Wardle, Charles


Mates, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Webb, Steve


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wells, Bowen


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Whittingdale, John


Moore, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Norman, Archie
Willis, Phil


Oaten, Mark
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Page, Richard
Woodward, Shaun


Paterson, Owen
Yen, Tim


Pickles, Erin
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Prior, David



Randall, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Rendel, David
Sri David Madel.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Covtry NE)
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blizzard, Bob


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Buck, Ms Karen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burden, Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Best, Harold
Campbell-Savours, Dale





Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobbin, Jim



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drew, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drown, Ms Julia
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Efford, Clive
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ennis, Jeff
Kemp, Fraser


Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flynn, Paul
Kingham, Ms Tess


Follett, Barbara
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Foulkes, George
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David






Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russet, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shipley, Ms Debra


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meale, Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Merron, Gillian
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Moran, Ms Margaret
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don


Palmer: Dr Nick
Trickett, Jon


Pendry, Tom
Truswell, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh?ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, R Hon John
White, Brian


Primarolo, Dawn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prosser, Gwyn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
(Swansea W)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Woolas, Phil


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wyatt, Derek


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Mike Hall and


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

BEST VALUE AUTHORITIES

Mr. John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert
?Subject to subsection (4A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 5.
No. 55, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) This section shall not apply to police authorities in respect of their oversight of any of the following police functions:

(a) any issues relating to national security;
(b) any relating to any matter whose public disclosure might compromise current or future police operations;
(c) any which is a statutory duty of police forces;
(d) the provision of any support service that may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.
No. 27, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the authority or body concerned, and
(b) all other relevant bodies

before making an order within this provision.'.
No. 58, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
`(1)(A) In the case of police authorities, the general duty in this section shall be without prejudice to section 10 of the Police Act 1996 ("General functions of chief constables").'. 
No. 72, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end add—
?() In preparing a best value performance plan, a police authority must also have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 ("local policing plans").'.
No. 73, in page 6, line 3, at end insert—
'(5) In the case of a police authority, a draft of the best value performance plan shall be prepared by the chief constable for the area and submitted by him to the police authority for it to consider. 
(6) Before issuing a best value performance plan which differs from the draft submitted by the chief constable under subsection (5), a police authority shall consult the chief constable.'.

Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to speak to the amendments, but I have no wish to delay the House unduly. Far be it from me to lay myself open to the charge of filibustering, whether justified or not. I have never filibustered on this Bill—at least, not deliberately—and I have no intention of doing so this evening
.
The amendments address an issue which is at the heart of the Bill, and which was debated a number of times in Committee: the inappropriate application of the Bill to police authorities. The application is inappropriate not just because police authorities have been shoehorned into a Bill that was in essence designed to deal with local authorities, but because the premise of necessity on which the Bill rests simply does not apply to police authorities. The amendments go some way towards solving the problem, although we would prefer the Bill not to apply to police authorities at all.
I say that the premise of necessity does not apply partly because of existing statutes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which deals with issues of police management and efficiency, and with section 43 of the Police Act 1996, which gives the Home Secretary specific powers to require police authorities to report to him on matters connected with the discharge of their responsibilities. Moreover, section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—now section 96 of the Police Act 1996—makes specific arrangements for the obtaining of local people's views. Police forces also have a statutory responsibility to draw up local policing plans.
Because of the existence of those Acts, there is no need for the Bill to apply to police authorities. The Home Secretary already has powers to scrutinise the drawing up of plans and the requirement to consult. If the Government are saying that the aim is simply to satisfy the requirements of existing legislation, and if the current arrangements are effective and efficient, why include police authorities?
In addition, the Audit Commission publishes a series of performance indicators—measurements of police efficiency. I have a copy of the document relating to 1996–97, which all hon. Members doubtless regard as essential bedtime reading. [Interruption.] It appears that the Minister does not.
The Audit Commission, however, acknowledges that
Police forces should be locally accountable
and
must respond to the needs and expectations of their local community.
As those needs and expectations vary in different parts of the country, additional performance indicators—benchmarking—will be of limited use. The need for different approaches in different parts of the country is one reason why the Association of Police Authorities has expressed reservations about the Bill. It does not want a uniform set of targets to be applied nationally.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the work of the Policy Studies Institute. In a report on local policing plans, it says:
Although policing plans must include national objectives, we found no evidence that plans were becoming dominated by central concerns.
National objectives that are included in those plans already give us an opportunity to judge police authorities according to some standard criteria, while allowing enough flexibility for the necessary discretion to be exercised locally.
The questions currently asked by the Audit Commission strike me—and, indeed, chief constables and the Association of Police Authorities—as satisfactory. We do not think that additional legislation is needed. The police also come within the ambit of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and there are questions to be asked about the relationship between it and the Audit Commission. Those questions were dealt with to an extent by a memorandum that was circulated in Committee. We were told that discussions were in progress, and that an accord was developing between the two bodies. As with other aspects of local government, however, we have a vision of finding a different inspector from a different organisation around every corner and in every corridor of

police authorities. That, I think, is something of an insult to police authorities and chief constables, suggesting that they cannot manage their affairs properly.
That brings me to the nub of the argument. As I have said, if the existing arrangements are satisfactory, it is surely unnecessary to include police authorities; but a more fundamental objection to the Bill is that it challenges the current governance of the police. The time-honoured tripartite arrangement is at least challenged, and arguably weakened, by the Bill. The Association of Police Authorities has made that point as well. The Bill, moreover, has three further weaknesses.
First, there is the setting of additional national targets. We must assume that they are additional, because if they are not, they have no point. The setting of additional targets may endanger the independence of the constabularies, especially if the targets are uniform and based on the false goal of comparability. Comparability has some value, but it should not be worshipped like a god. Comparisons between a rural and an urban police force are of dubious merit: many aspects cannot be adequately or properly compared, and the comparison may be misleading rather than edifying.
Secondly, if operational matters are to be included in the assessment of best value, the Bill will also impinge on the discretion of chief constables. Chief constables have always had discretion over operational matters, and police authorities have traditionally recognised that. Their relationship with chief constables has been founded on the division of responsibilities.
Thirdly—and even worse—we must consider the Bill's possible impact on the style of policing and the character of police forces.
That which is most measurable is not necessarily that which is most desirable, or even most desired. Of course the logistics involved in dealing with offences are important, and highly measurable. Many aspects of input are also measurable—questions such as "how many?", "how much?" and "how long?" On the contrary, the value of community policing—police visits to schools, for instance, and the preventive policies of local forces—is harder to measure, because its effects are less immediately tangible.
Bobbies on the beat may not be particularly fashionable according to the accountants' view of policing that we seem to be adopting, but such non-adversarial policing is very popular in my constituency. Along with Gary Jenkins, editor of my local newspaper—I shall not waste this opportunity of naming it: it is the Spalding Post—I have been running a campaign to increase the number of bobbies on the beat. Some so-called experts have told us that is no longer seen as an important part of policing, because its value cannot be measured empirically, unlike other aspects of policing that relate easily to uniform targets and uniform methods of measurement.
The amendments attempt to limit the excesses of the Bill—by exclusion, in the case of amendment No. 55; by clarification of the Bill's interface with existing statutes, in the case of amendments Nos. 58 and 72; and by defending the role of chief constables, in the case of amendment No. 73. Of course we want effective and efficient police forces, but we also want police forces that preserve the best traditions of impartiality, independence
and local accountability. We are justly proud of those things. They are a result of the current system of governance of police forces, which the Bill seriously jeopardises.

Mr. Burstow: One of the amendments has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is not in his place. It raises an issue that was touched on in the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill—the application of best value to the Greater London authority. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have the pleasure—I think that that is the right word—of being members of that Committee, and have had the opportunity to explore a little further how best value will apply to the authority.
In a number of written questions, I have sought to clarify—both for my benefit and, I hope, for the benefit of those who will have to operate the best value regime in the Greater London authority—how the duty of best value will apply. I want to go a little further and to seek further clarification.
I have received a useful letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), which sets out the Government's thinking on the matter. There is still an issue around the order-making powers that the Bill provides. I seek some clarification from the hon. Gentleman's fellow Under-Secretary on the matter this evening.
The letter, dated 16 March, says in respect of a duty of best value applied by order of the Secretary of State:
he could provide for the GLA to be a best value authority in relation to specified functions which are not functions of the Authority, but are functions of another best value authority.
That sentence was hard to get to grips with. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to elucidate, because it is not explained later in the letter. Does it mean that the mayor can effectively act as the best value authority for a London borough? Does it mean that the mayor can act as the best value authority for other bodies from which he takes over functions? The Greater London Authority Bill provides for him to exercise other agencies' powers if they do not take them up themselves. We need to be clear what that means in respect of the application of best value.
In Committee, the Minister of State expressed concern that an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on the application of best value corporately to the Greater London authority would blur the lines of accountability. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will explain a little further how he thinks the lines of accountability will be blurred by applying corporately to the Greater London authority a duty to secure best value.
Over time, that would be the better way to do it. If it is not possible to do that, it gives rise to the question whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is responsible for drafting both the Local Government Bill and the Greater London Authority Bill, failed to exercise joined-up thinking in producing both Bills. It would have been easy to apply best value corporately if the drafting of the Greater

London Authority Bill had allowed that to happen. However, it appears from the way in which the Bill has been put together that elaborate powers are needed, with the Secretary of State making things up as we go along.
Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some further explanation of how the best value regime will apply to the Greater London authority. I hope that it is clear, consistent and readily understandable to elected members, the mayor and officials who will have to operate the system
.
Other amendments deal with the police service. Again, I have had the opportunity to study the exchanges in the Standing Committee, which seemed to boil down to whether a police authority or the police force were responsible for discharging the duty of best value. Provided that the Bill applies a duty of best value on police authorities—from my reading of the Bill, that is what it does—Liberal Democrats do not have a problem in supporting the Government policy. However, the official Opposition are right to raise the concern that it might jeopardise operational matters. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could repeat the assurances that were given by the Minister of State during the deliberations in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I know how much he cares about the police force and policing methods. As a Nottinghamshire Member, I am aware of his activities in that regard over a long time in the east midlands.
I shall deal first with the amendments that have implications for police functions: amendments Nos. 54, 55, 58, 72 and 73.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would exclude from the best value provisions certain functions over which police authorities have oversight. The amendments are similar to one which Conservative Members tabled in Committee. It may be helpful if I reiterate what was said then—that the amendments would not be consistent with our objectives for the police service under best value, which are to ensure that the police are delivering high-quality services across the range of their activities.
Matters of national security and operational effectiveness will always be key priorities for police authorities and chief constables, as they are for the Government. I reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings again that nothing in the best value provisions will affect the ability of the police to discharge those functions.
The checks and balances that exist now to protect sensitive areas of police work, such as that of the special branch and the anti-terrorist branch, will continue to exist under best value. It will be the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary which, with the Audit Commission, will have a joint role in the inspection and audit of police authorities under best value, to ensure, as they do now, that details of such matters are exempt from publication. However, we do not believe that the provision of those services where expenditure can be high should be exempt from best value rigours. any more than should the other services provided by the police.
New subsection (4A)(c) would exclude from best value any function that is the statutory duty of a police force. That fails to recognise the shared responsibilities for policing within the tripartite structure, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. It is the statutory duty of the police authority to maintain an efficient and effective police force for its area. The chief constable is responsible for the day-to-day direction and control of the force. To disapply best value from those duties would not be consistent with the objective to secure year-on-year improvements in services. However, as we recognised in last year's local government White Paper, it would not be appropriate to expose to competition certain core statutory activities that are carried out by the police.
I am assuming that the reference in the amendment to "support services" means services such as administration, information technology and training. We see no valid argument for exempting any police support services from best value, whether they are provided nationally, or on a force-by-force basis. Indeed, such services, like others, should be critically reviewed and inspected regularly, so that we can be sure that they are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are both undesirable and unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw amendment No. 54 at the appropriate moment.
Amendment No. 58 would provide that nothing in the manner in which the duty of best value impacts on police authorities shall have effect on the functions of chief constables. Amendment No. 72 would require police authorities to have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 in preparing a best value performance plan. Amendment No. 73 would put responsibility on the chief constable to draft the local performance plan for the police authority's agreement.
Those amendments cover territory that has already been the subject of interesting debate in Committee. I hope that they have been tabled, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings indicated, to obtain reassurance, rather than to reopen old arguments.
The Bill is very explicit about how it will impact on police. The duty of best value will apply to police authorities, but will not apply to police forces. As such, the Bill does not affect the tripartite structure of policing. However, that said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious that no opportunity should be missed to ensure that police forces are run as efficiently and effectively as possible. In achieving that end, close co-operation between chief constables and police authorities is very important.
The Bill will strengthen that process of co-operation by virtue of the provision in clause 23(1)—which requires that the local policing plan, as provided for by section 8 of the Police Act 1996, shall give particulars of any action proposed for the purposes of complying with best value. As a matter of law, responsibility for production of the local policing plan is that of the police authority.
In practice, however, the chief constable prepares the first draft of the policing plan. In doing so, he is thus required to have regard to the authority's statutory duties under best value, without being subject to a statutory obligation to achieve best value himself.
Section 10 of the 1996 Act is entirely consistent with that approach. It provides that the chief constable, in discharging his functions, is to have regard to section 8—which I have just described—but does not apply the statutory duty of best value to the chief constable; nor is it the Government's intention to create such a duty. We believe that that is the best way of ensuring an integrated approach between police authorities and police forces under best value. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities—both of which have been consulted about the amendment to the 1996 Act—fully support that approach.
I therefore ask the Opposition Members who tabled amendments Nos. 58, 72 and 73 not to press them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am not entirely clear on the matter, not having had the benefit of participating directly in the debates in Committee. However, as I understand it, the Association of Police Authorities took the view that it would be better if the best value aspects of police authorities' role were assessed by the Audit Commission rather than by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Minister seemed to be saying that the Government are proposing that HMIC should undertake the best value scrutiny of police authorities. Did I misunderstand him, or is he saying that the Association of Police Authorities is happy with all the provisions, including the one with which he is now dealing?

Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that point. However, I am assured that I was right in what I said about the consultation process. Possibly the advice and information that he has received was misjudged.
Amendment No. 26 would have the effect of subjecting all the functions of the Greater London authority to the general duty of best value, and not only those corporate functions exercised through the mayor.
In Committee, we discussed at some length application to the Greater London authority of the duty of best value. Indeed, amendment No. 26 is identical to an amendment that was considered in Committee—as the Official Report will show, at columns 31–34 of the Standing Committee debates. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is not in the Chamber—was not a member of the Committee that considered this Bill. I am therefore prepared to explain—if not to him, to his colleagues—why the Bill was drafted as was. Subsequently—if the right hon. Gentleman comes into the Chamber by the end of the debate—I hope that he will not press his amendment.
As I have said before, the Government believe that the Greater London authority should be subjected to the duty of best value. However, the way in which that duty is applied to the authority will have to be flexibly drawn to take account of the different ways in which the GLA itself exercises its functions and its relationship with the four functional bodies that will deliver the main Londonwide services—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The Government believe that the Bill has to be sufficiently flexible to cater for different internal working arrangements, to ensure that as much of the GLA's normal


work as possible is subjected to the duty of best value. Clause 2(4) will achieve that, by allowing the Secretary of State to provide, by order, for the duty of best value to be applied to any functions that the GLA exercises other than through the mayor, and to any role it plays in respect of functions of other best value authorities, such as setting a strategy for Transport for London.
6.45 pm
Our approach to creating a duty of best value for the GLA takes specific account of the range of different responsibilities that will exist between its constituent parts, and will ensure, as far as possible, that accountability for delivering best value will be attached to the bodies that are responsible for performing its various functions.

Mr. Swayne: I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I am also not sure that I am following the Minister's logic. Although he is stressing the importance of flexibility in dealing with the Greater London authority, he seemed to rule out such flexibility earlier in the debate, when he dismissed the flexibility that would have been afforded to police authorities by amendment No. 55.

Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our using the Bill to allow the GLA to usurp the functions of any other body when it does not have a statutory basis for doing so. I assure him also that, if he will allow me to finish my speech, I shall answer any questions that he might have on our approach to the amendments. He will have clarity.
A simple application of the duty of best value to the GLA corporately—which is what amendment No. 26 seems to be seeking to achieve—would prevent the objectives that I have described from being achieved satisfactorily. If the application of the duty of best value were not clearly specified, we should run the risk of blurred lines of accountability. The Bill as currently drafted will give us the ability to identify clearly the roles of the mayor, the assembly and the functional bodies. A simple corporate application of the duty would not allow us to do so, and would detract from the transparency that we wish to create.
I hope that that has clarified for the Opposition the position regarding the GLA, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree not to press amendment No. 26—if he arrives in the Chamber in time to do so.

Mr. Burstow: Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in the Chamber, I have raised the same issue as it affects the GLA. I am not the right hon. Gentleman's keeper and cannot account for his absence, but believe that it is an important issue, which my hon. Friends also have raised and are still concerned about.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: I am intervening on the Minister; it would be very difficult to take a further intervention.
Will the confusion on the Government's proposals on local government more generally and on executive mayors require future amendments to the legislation?

Ms Armstrong: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Meale: The simple answer to that—as my right hon. Friend the Minister is saying—is that the Bill does not deal with those proposals, which will be debated when they are proposed.
Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant bodies before making an order disapplying a best-value duty in specified authorities.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his apparent concern over the way in which the power to disapply a best value duty might be exercised by the Secretary of State. His amendment has at least given the Government an opportunity to state our views. He will be aware—as he has followed the debate in Committee—that we recognise that the duty of best value could be onerous if applied in full to smaller town and parish councils. In recognition of that possibility, clause 2(5) will allow us to vary the duty as appropriate. If he gets around to listening to me, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who led for the Opposition in Committee. In particular, he emphasised the need for a more sensible approach to town and parish councils.
We also recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the exercise of the power. That is why clause 2(6) requires an order made under this provision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
I am sure that I do not need to remind Opposition Members that it is simply a matter of good government to ensure that the views of interested parties are taken on board before proceeding with legislation. My Department has already had discussions with representatives of town and parish councils, as well as the Audit Commission, about the application of best value to those authorities.
I am sure that Opposition Members cannot seriously believe that the Government would be so neglectful as to submit an order for parliamentary approval without first having had regard to the views of interested parties.
Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State only to consult relevant bodies and not to have regard to their views. It would not guarantee the quality, depth or extent of that consultation. Indeed, for the purposes of the amendment, consultation could be so meagre as to be worthless. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gets here on time, I shall ask him not to press the amendment.

Mr. Hayes: I shall not delay the House long, but I should like to pick up a couple of the points that the Minister made. He claimed that the tripartite system for the governance of the police remained intact. The tripartite system is essentially a separation of powers. Historically, the arrangements for accountability and inspection have similarly been separate. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has typically dealt with managing, inspecting and holding to account the operational functions of the police force. The notion that it will now have power to inspect police authorities is certainly contentious. As my hon. Friend the Member for


South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, there is clearly some disagreement about the attitude of the Association of Police Authorities in that regard. I have a document from the APA saying:
The Association is vigorously opposed to the proposal that HMIC, the professional adviser to the Home Secretary, should play any part in inspecting how police authorities go about fulfilling their best value duties.
So at the very least there is some doubt as to the position of the APA. It may have changed its mind following further discussion. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

Mr. Meale: I should like to make two points. First, on the different views on the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have expressed the views that resulted from consultations conducted by officials in the Department. Secondly, I did not give the hon. Gentleman a complete answer on the effect of performance indicators on the style of policing. I understand his concern, bearing in mind his many years of involvement in these matters. Local authorities and police authorities will be free to put the national indicators into a local context. Auditors and inspectors will take full account of that.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for the Minister's kind words, particularly the hyperbole about my service in Nottinghamshire. I give credit for prompting him to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who served with me for a number of years, and I am grateful. However, it seems to me that there is at least a question mark about the role of HMIC and the Audit Commission in terms of their particular responsibilities for ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces. I shall not make further comment about the APA's view, but it is certainly my view that HMIC inspectors are not the best people to perform that function, whereas they clearly are the best people to carry out their current functions effectively.
In respect of the style of policing, if we move to a system of comparable targets, there will have to be a degree of uniformity. Particularly if the funding mechanisms are based on that system, it will encourage a style of policing that is straightforward and easily measured. That is already occurring to some degree and it is why, for example, police forces find it hard to fund and implement a style of policing which, although it may be popular with the public, is hard to measure in tangible terms.

Mr. Meale: I do not think that that affects the duty of best value. One reason why I paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman is that for a long time I have had sympathy with the views that he has expressed in the county that I represent. Those views are widely known. I take some comfort from the fact that such views are being expressed about policing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the police in my constituency of Mansfield have adopted that style.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I shall attempt to assist the Minister by reminding him that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Meale: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the duty of best value will upset the process of decision making by local police.

Mr. Hayes: I said that I would be brief, but I am hesitant to draw the debate to a close, because if it

continues any longer the Minister may say even nicer things about me, and the more of those that are recorded in Hansard, the better.

Mr. Swayne: I followed the Minister's logic when he appealed for flexibility in dismissing amendment No. 26, but it seemed to me that he was also dismissing that very flexibility in respect of police authorities when he dismissed amendment No.55. Am I alone in spotting that contradiction?

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As hon. Members will know, I am renowned for my generosity, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is more hardhearted and never wastes an opportunity to draw attention to contradictions in a Minister's speech. There is certainly a fundamental issue of flexibility and independence of police forces that concerns the Opposition.
Having said that, I am anxious to ensure that the House has the maximum time to discuss the other faults and failures of the Bill, so I shall not prolong matters further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

THE GENERAL DUTY

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 3, line 5, leave out
`way in which its functions are exercised'
and insert
'value for money of its provision of services,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in page 3, leave out line 6 and insert
`having equal regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'. No. 29, in page 3, line 9, after `(a)', insert 'elected'.
No. 30, in page 3, line 11" after `(b)', insert 'elected'.
No. 33, in page 3" leave out lines 17 to 19.
No. 63, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out
`having regard to a combination of'
and insert 'having equal regard to'.
No. 51, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out
`way in which its functions are exercised'
and insert
`value for money of its provision of services,'.
No. 66, page 4, line 13, leave out
`having regard to a combination of'
and insert 'having equal regard to'.

Mr. Jenkin: The importance of this part of the Bill cannot be overestimated. The amendments relate to clause 3, which covers the fundamental duty of best value. We spent considerable time in Committee discussing its definition. Clause 3(1) states:
A best value authority must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy efficiency and effectiveness.


Considerable effort must have been applied to the drafting of those words to tighten the meaning. The Bill puts an obligation on an authority to achieve specific aims, but if someone wanted to sue a council for failure to fulfil the best value duties, the court could well have difficulty deciding what the duties mean.
7 pm
Everything hangs on the duty of best value. We wondered whether the definition could be improved. We spent a lot of time in Committee considering possible expansions or enlargements of the definition. The purpose of this group of amendments is to establish the meaning. We think that it means value for money. That may be rather like going into a drawing room and saying a rude word to the Government. They may regard value for money as a mean-spirited, bad-tempered and narrow-minded phrase that does not reflect people's wider aspirations for their local authority, but in its broadest sense it means securing the finest and best-quality services at the best available cost.
Clause 3(1) seems to be part of the packaging of the Bill. It is designed to be all things to all men. It is attractive to Labour authorities because it does not mean competitive tendering and to Conservative authorities because they may understand it as a duty to secure value for money. The disciplines of competition are extended to all the activities of local authorities later in the Bill, with clause 5 all but putting in place a competitive tendering regime.
The Bill uses all kinds of language in place of the ultimate truth: if best value is to mean anything, the fundamental duty must be to achieve value for money. That is not the same as the cheapest option, which the Government have endlessly caricatured as our position; it means getting best value.
To inform the concept of value for money. we suggest that, rather than having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, authorities should have regard to those three in equal measure, because they are equally important. We are suggesting a more specific way of expressing the combination, because we are asking not for a bit of economy, a lot of efficiency and a lot of effectiveness, but for an equal consideration of all three. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 to clause 5, and amendments Nos. 57, 63 and 66, which deal with the need to have equal regard to the combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, cover those points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled further amendments, but he is not present tonight. The Government changed the business of the House at very short notice, which may explain why he is unable to be with us for this debate. He had expected to be able to debate the amendments last night. Indeed, if the Government had not pulled stumps he would have been able to do so.
My right hon. Friend's amendments clarify who should be the
representatives of persons liable to pay any tax, precept of levy to or in respect of an authority
and the
representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of any area

He says that they should be elected, which is a good principle. We heard earlier this evening that it might be all right to consult a focus group to find out how popular the Government's capping policies are. It may be implicit in the Bill that a focus group would be enough to deal with the requirement to consult. We are suggesting that elected representatives are the right people to consult. Amendment No. 33 would delete subsection (3) of clause 3. If the representatives to be consulted under subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) are elected, subsection (3) becomes unnecessary.
The amendments are useful and are designed to promote discussion about what best value means. We think that value for money in the provision of an authority's services is a clearer definition of best value than
the way in which its functions are exercised".
We commend the amendments to the House.

Jackie Ballard: The definition of best value is central to the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with having equal regard to the three Es, although we moved amendments in Committee to add other Es—equality, environmental sustainability and equity—because the Audit Commission's three Es of economy, effectiveness and efficiency provide too narrow a focus and do not encompass all the issues that local authorities should consider when providing or contracting for services. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, which would narrow even further the focus of best value to make it just a value-for-money exercise, should be rejected.
The amendments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) look attractive on the surface.

Mr. Jenkin: When the hon. Lady goes shopping and buys herself a nice new dress, does she believe that she does not get value for money unless she buys the cheapest dress? That is not how normal people make purchasing decisions. They judge value for money on the relationship between the quality of what they are buying and what they are spending. That is what we are focusing on. The hon. Lady is falling into the trap of believing that value for money means the cheapest. That is silly. We are looking for the best value for money.

Jackie Ballard: I am so pleased that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—or wherever it is—holds me in such high regard. Under compulsory competitive tendering, people shopping for trousers would have had to look for the cheapest.

Ms Armstrong: What about dresses?

Jackie Ballard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman buys dresses, too. When I go shopping, I might be looking at more than just the cost or the quality of the article. If I were looking at just those two aspects, value for money might be my main consideration, but I might be interested in whether the article was made by people in a sweat-shop in the Philippines or by people somewhere else who were paid a decent wage. Many people take into account equity, decency and opportunity when looking for goods and services. The purpose of our amendments in Committee was to widen the definition from the Audit Commission's narrow three Es.
The amendments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst look attractive on the surface, because most of us have a positive knee-jerk reaction to the word "elected", but I am confused about who the right hon. Gentleman thinks the elected representatives of taxpayers are. Councillors are their direct representatives. I wonder whether he is thinking of having more elections to choose people to be consulted on best value. I should be surprised if that was his plan, because it would be bureaucratic nonsense.
However, that argument does not apply to amendment No. 30, which would be an improvement. It would be useful for the business community to elect representatives for consultation purposes. That could refer to representative organisations that already exist—for example, chambers of commerce and industry. We support the requirement for local authorities to consult local people on how to fulfil their duties under best value; any good local authority should be doing that already.
Consultation would show that most people with an interest in service delivery would want other issues above and beyond the three Es to be taken into account. In Committee, the Minister said that, although only the three Es would be in the Bill, local authorities would, for example, be expected to take equality issues into account. Local authorities should act as leaders of their communities, and ensure that services are provided in accordance with the needs and wishes of local people.
Without policies to address disadvantage, there is a danger that majoritarianism may rule in consultation responses, and that would further disadvantage minorities who are excluded by economic, social, physical or geographical conditions. I repeat my concern that employees are not included on the list of those to be consulted about the duty of best value.

Mr. Lansley: I wish to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). First, I do not think that it is necessary for additional Es—be they equality, equity or environmental sustainability—to be added to the list of those considerations to be taken into account. The word "effectiveness" in this context is a compelling word; and includes the taking into account of all those purposes for which the authority exercises its functions.
If the authority, rightly, believes that equity in the administration of its functions or environmental sustainability is an appropriate purpose, it is perfectly reasonable for the authority to seek to carry that out effectively—and it will come to its best value duty by that route.
Secondly, amendment No. 50 deals with the hon. Lady' s caricature of what value for money means in this context. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made it clear that he thought that value for money would be an improvement. However, it is not simply that the amendment would improve the drafting, but that it would radically change the way in which authorities had to think about their best value duty.
My fear is this: The Government's rhetoric in relation to the best value duty is that the concept of continuous improvement embraces—naturally and spontaneously in all authorities that exercise the best value duty—continuous improvement in value for money. However, that is not necessarily the case. An authority that said that

it had regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the context of seeking continuously to improve its services may not necessarily continuously improve value for money.
That authority may be far more concerned with the continuous raising of the level of service provided—even to the point where there are, effectively, diseconomies of scale or inefficiencies in the service provided—or with the way in which the quality of service is provided, while having regard to things like efficiency and economy, but none the less seeing the continuous improvement criterion as the driving consideration.
Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities are prone to move on quickly from a debate about value for money to a debate about how additional money can be spent in ways that will deliver additional services to the public. They may well take the view—they may well be wrong—that the additional service that they wish to provide represents a continuous improvement in that service. However, that may not necessarily deliver value for money. Although an authority may think about whether it can provide a service economically, that does not mean that that level of service represents necessarily greater value for money than that provided the year before. The authority may have moved to a standard providing lower value for money than that which applied before.
The redrafting of the best value duty—so that continuous improvement is expressed in terms of value for money, and not simply the way in which functions are exercised—cements the duty in a context which the local taxpayer would regard as appropriate. Taxpayers should not be at the mercy of an authority that is using the best value duty, and which says that it can continue to take the service to levels that are not justified by the value for money of what is delivered.
7.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex expressed the need to have regard not just to the three Es, but to ensure that each is given its due weight. "Having equal regard" would be the appropriate wording. If that does not happen, it seems perfectly legitimate—if not satisfactory—for an authority to have regard to economy in the delivery of its service, but to override economy in the interests of what it regards as effectiveness.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 57 deal with the same purposes, but the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) give effect to a different purpose, to which I am quite sympathetic. The hon. Member for Taunton seemed not to appreciate the circumstances in which the measure could apply. Happily, my district authority and county council routinely consult me, as a Member of Parliament, about the manner in which they exercise their functions before they set budgets. It is not necessary for them to do so—it is certainly not their duty.
Equally, county councillors are not necessarily consulted by district authorities before budgets are set, and district councillors are not routinely consulted by county councillors before budgets are set. Likewise, the "elected representatives" could well include representatives elected to parish councils who, in my experience, could offer an effective means by which the service that a district council provided to the people in its area could be assessed and consulted upon before a district authority set its budget.
In truth, elected representatives from parish councils would probably deliver a far more meaningful set of consultations to a district authority about how it should set its budget and balance its demands upon the taxpayer with the service that it provides than would a focus group or a representative sample of the electorate, who may well have a less complete understanding than parish councillors of the manner in which the district council relates to the local area.
The hon. Member for Taunton asked who would be the representatives of persons who were liable to pay non-domestic rates. Under the clause, that is left entirely in the hands of a best value authority to choose for itself. I was the representative of the British chambers of commerce at the time of the Local Government Act 1989, and it was largely at our instigation that we secured a statutory duty for local authorities to consult representatives of the business community—effectively, non-domestic ratepayers—in relation to the framing of local economic development plans. That is sometimes honoured more in the breach than in the observance, but it is still there, 10 years later, on the statute book.
This is an opportunity for the Minister to say who she thinks the representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates would be, in any context. For my part, I hope that chambers of commerce and industry would be pre-eminent among those representatives. In practice, they are often the elected representatives of such persons—even though not every non-domestic ratepayer, by any means, in any given area would be a member of a chamber of commerce and industry. In almost every case, a non-domestic ratepayer can be a member of a chamber of commerce and industry. The articles of association of such chambers are designed to give local representation in relation to that class of person.
It would be helpful if the Minister made it clear that, if the Secretary of State is to issue guidance to best value authorities, that guidance may well direct those authorities to consultations with chambers of commerce and industry.

Dr. Whitehead: Hon. Members have been a little kind about amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 33, which give an interesting insight into the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and, to some extent, that of the previous Government. It appears that he wants to nail everything down and have everything precisely defined but, as in the famous parable of the sorcerer's apprentice, everything goes haywire when one examines the detail.
As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out, the amendments would leave the words
in respect of the authority
in subsection (2)(a) of clause 3, so the people referred to must be the councillors, and not other people as suggested by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who has put a kind and sweeping interpretation on the intentions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
Amendment No. 30 would have subsection (2)(b) refer to
elected representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of any area

but since the provision requiring that the local authority takes account of
persons who appear to the authority to be representative of that group
would be deleted by amendment No. 33, the authority would appear to have to consult anyone who pays non-domestic rates and is elected in any capacity whatever.
Presumably, then, the local chamber of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the local ironmongers and anyone else who could claim to have elected anyone to anything should be exhaustively consulted. That is a nice ideal picture, but in my experience of local government the reality of the proper exercise of consultation has always been that people who appear to be representative of the various groups are invited to take part.
It would be perverse if, under subsection (3), the chamber of commerce, with its elected officers, did not appear to the authority to be representative. The local authority would be in some trouble if it did not accept that a local chamber of commerce was representative, but by trying to nail everything down exactly, the amendments would achieve precisely the opposite of what was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although, as I systematically fail to read his mind, perhaps that was not his intention after all.
It is interesting to note the boundaries of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is appropriate. He does not appear to be interested in consumers, who are the subject of subsection (2)(c) and (d). Under the amendments, anybody could represent himself and no one would have to be elected. As amendment No. 33 would delete subsection (3), anyone could turn up and say whatever they wanted. The same applies to any amenity society or local group interested in the parks and commons, the old town or local history.
In the amendments, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us a little cameo of what happened under the previous Government, who tried to nail everything down so that authorities could not move at all, with such toxic side effects that relations between central Government and local authorities were widely poisoned.
The clause is designed to inject some flexibility into the relationship between the local authority and the groups representing those who pay the local taxes, which should properly be consulted about what the authority does. If the authority acts responsibly, that should be the end of the matter. It is a sad reflection on the quality of the Opposition's attempts to amend the Bill that the amendments, if accepted, would completely reverse that intention.

Ms Armstrong: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, all the amendments would narrow the issue of best value. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) moved the amendment in a probing manner, and I intend to respond in that spirit.
On amendments Nos. 50 and 51, we have consistently said that the duty of best value needs to tackle both the cost and the quality of public service provision. The amendments are clearly designed to improve auditability


but they seem to betray a fixation with cost to the detriment of other equally relevant considerations, such as quality.
I understand that Opposition Members might want to base the duty on value for money, given the Audit Commission's skill in assessing it, as has been demonstrated over recent years, but value for money is not in itself as easily demonstrated as continuous improvement against consistently set performance indicators. The question is begged, value for whom? Simple, measurable improvement is what local people expect and is the yardstick against which best value should be judged. Alongside that will go what local people are prepared to pay.
Amendments Nos.50 and 51 betray a narrow focus because they are couched in terms of services, not functions, as the clause currently provides. We have deliberately chosen to define the duty of best value in those terms, as the definition of functions goes far wider than that implied by the use of the word "services". It means that internal support functions, not normally delivered to the public, but nevertheless part of the overall cost of functions, and a contributory factor in their efficiency, will be subject to the duty of best value.
The amendments would run the risk of removing such functions from the scope of the duty altogether and recreating the "us and them" mentality in authorities that so bedevilled compulsory competitive tendering. The duty of best value will very often be measured against the quality and cost of front-line services, but the way in which it is defined in the clause allows us also to consider internal functions and the manner in which an authority is managed generally. That is the best and most comprehensive way in which to ensure that authorities improve their performance and make themselves more responsive to their community generally. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Test dealt effectively with the problems arising from amendments Nos.29, 30 and 33, I will not dwell on them, especially as the right hon.Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not here.
Amendments Nos.57, 63 and 66 would alter the nature of the duty of best value by requiring authorities to have equal regard to each of the elements of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, rather than a combination of them. The hon.Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) supported that.
7.30 pm
I ask Opposition Members to consider carefully what the amendments would mean. Do they seriously believe that an authority that is already demonstrating a high level of effectiveness in a function, based on a comparison with others, should not be able in the future to concentrate its efforts on delivering a similar level of performance in the economy with which it delivers that function? We seek to maintain flexibility so that councils can make sensible decisions that arise from the information they get from performance reviews and audit reports about what they do reasonably well and what they might improve. We expect them to pay particular attention to areas that could be improved. That is common sense and, on reflection, I am sure that Opposition Members would agree.
Opposition Members seem to forget that we are dealing with many different authorities of different types. We want to celebrate those differences. None of them is likely to have exactly the same priorities and none of them will start from exactly the same level of performance. It is nonsense to expect that they would wish to adopt exactly the same approach to improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and nor should they be made to do so. The amendments would impose uniformity across the board and would remove local flexibility at a stroke. They fly in the face of what the duty of best value is designed to be about, which is making best value authorities more accountable to their communities. They are restrictive and rigid in the same way that CCT was and I urge Opposition Members to withdraw them.

Mr.Lansley: I raised one particular question that the Minister has not addressed—what do the Government believe is the best mechanism for best value authorities to consult representatives of non-domestic rate payers?

Ms Armstrong: The White Paper makes that clear. We have set out ideas for consultation on the non-domestic rate that are not simply mechanical but which obtain the support of the business community. We want to lock that community into a process that it feels gives it real consultation.Local authorities have a statutory duty to consult on their budgets. In some, the process works well and the business community is satisfied. However, in too many authorities, that is not the case. We want a clear process to be adopted in every area so that the business community is part of determining the process and agreement is achieved between the social partners—business and the local authority—about the precise mechanism to be employed. I hope that the Opposition will not feel the need to press the amendments to a Division.

Mr.Jenkin: I feel like Hamlet trying to persuade Polonius that a cloud has adopted a particular shape. I am pleased that we have had this debate, because we have exposed this part of the Bill as packaging and little more. I hope that the Minister will consider what she has said. She said that amendment No.57 would remove flexibility at a stroke and destroy the accountability at the heart of the Bill. That is the most ridiculous language to use about three lines of text. She said that the amendments were strict and rigid.
We have exposed the fact that this part of the Bill is gobbledegook. The real guts of the Bill are not contained in these airy-fairy objectives but come later in the provisions for powers of supervision, control and, ultimately, intervention. That is the purpose of the Bill and the airy-fairy language at the front is merely to persuade people that it is a good Bill. The Minister said, absurdly, that to talk of value for money is narrow minded, but most electors, when they vote in elections, regard value for money as the most important issue, although they may express that differently. For example, I am a cyclist and I regard good provision for cyclists by local authorities as good value for money, but other people have different views of what is good value for money. What is crucial is that the performance of local


authorities, when they undertake functions, should be measured so that we know whether they are getting value for money.

Mr.Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in our culture of continuous improvement, there comes a point in every type of business where the marginal cost of improving the service offered no longer yields value for money? The acid test of whether the duty in this part of the Bill will deliver value for money will be when a local authority seeks constantly to improve its service but gets diminishing returns. I suspect that that is what will happen.

Mr.Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the point that he has neglected is that the Government want local authorities, as the providers of services, to aspire to best value, but the ultimate control comes from the council tax capping powers and the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. The control on cost ultimately comes from the other provisions in the Bill. I find it extraordinary that the Minister can use such extravagant language when to talk about which approach is better—a combination of economy and efficiency, or the need for an equal regard for economy, efficiency and economy—is to count the angels on a pin head.
We have exposed this part of the Bill as complete nonsense and the Minister, in her heart of hearts, knows that. The important provisions in the Bill are the powers of intervention that the Secretary of State will exercise over local authorities.Unfortunately, the Bill lacks any prescription over how the Secretary of State should exercise those powers, which is why it is such a dangerous Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No.60, in page 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.61, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'or standards'.
Government amendment No.6.
No.62, in page 3, line 35, leave out 'and standards'.
No.46, in page 3, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert
'shall do so in the terms recommended to him by the Audit Commission.'
No.64, in page 3, line 41, after 'Commission', insert
'and any other statutory body specified by order.'
No.47, in page 3, line 41, at end insert —
'() in any instance when he specifies a performance indicator or standard in terms contrary to any recommendations made to him by the Audit Commission, shall publish with the order an explanation of his reasons for doing so.'.
No.77, in clause 14, page 9, line 37, leave out from 'if to end of line 39 and insert
'a report under section 13 recommends that the Secretary of State give a direction under this section.'.
No.78, in page 10, line 3, after 'opinion', insert
', having regard to the report issued under section 13 and any recommendations therein,'.
No.79, in page 10, line 5, after 'Part', insert
'and is proportionate to the degree of failure identified in the report issued under section 13.'.
No.80, in page 10, line 17, leave out
'or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate'.
No.48, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—
'() where the Secretary of State exercises any function of the authority, he shall publish a statement of the way in which he will exercise that function, how this will remedy any failings set out in the Audit Commission's report, and the period of time over which he expects to exercise this function.'.
No.81, in page 10, line 26, leave out '(if any)'.
No.5, in page 10, leave out lines 33 to 43 and insert—
'(8) No direction under this section shall be given unless a resolution in support has been approved by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.'.
No.49, in page 10, line 33, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
`() The Secretary of State may give a direction before the expiry of one month as specified in (7) above, if he considers the direction sufficiently urgent.'.
No.86, in page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
No.87, in page 10, line 34, leave out 'he' and insert
'the report issued under section 13'.
No.88, in page 10, line 39, at end insert—
'c) representatives as required under section 3(2).'.

Mr. Waterson: The first amendments in this important group alter clause 4. Amendments 60 to 62 would reduce the Secretary of State's discretionary power to set standards for local authorities. The key theme of the Bill is the Secretary of State's gathering to himself of some extraordinary powers over whose exercise there will be little control. Clause 4 is another example of that.
Performance indicators should be set centrally, but performance standards could profitably and sensibly be decided by local people, through their elected representatives. The amendments provide a litmus test of whether the Government mean what their rhetoric says about returning power to, and trying to rejuvenate, local government, and of whether they are willing to trust local government to make such decisions.
If local government is to mean anything, it must recognise that different people in different parts of the country have different needs, aspirations and approaches. We want a looser rein than the Bill allows, and an explanation from the Minister of why the Secretary of State needs such tight controls. Why do the Government not trust local government?
Government amendment No.6 relates to consultation by the Secretary of State on performance standards and indicators. The reference to consultation is a welcome gesture from the Government, but imposes no terribly heavy burden on the Secretary of State, mentioning
such persons as he thinks fit.


He may choose as few or as many as he wishes. It is a pretty puny requirement, which bears comparison—although there is no direct read-across—with how clause 3 sets out in graphic detail the sort of people that best value authorities must consult. Clause 3 creates detailed obligations for authorities setting out who they must consult, and, perhaps, implying those they should not or need not consult.Pill the Minister explain the philosophy behind the rather wishy-washy consultation requirement? If the Government really believe in consultation, why do they not spell out that belief in the Bill?
Amendments Nos.46, 64 and 47 would limit the Secretary of State's discretionary power to vary the performance indicators that he will set for local authorities from those recommended by the Audit Commission. The Bill requires him to have regard to the recommendations, but in practice gives him carte blanche to act as he sees fit. We could usefully tweak those powers, circumscribing them somewhat.
7.45 pm
Clause 14 deals with the Secretary of State's powers. There can be few precedents, at least in peacetime, for the panoply of powers that the Secretary of State seeks in order to enforce his will on local government. Amendment Nos.77 to 79 would remove from the Secretary of State the decision as to whether the local authority is failing to comply with the best value regime.Pe say that the criteria should be measured and established by the Audit Commission, which would remove the temptation for political interference and make sure that the best value regime operated objectively.
No one will argue with the proposition that a lot of faith and confidence from both sides of the House reposes in the Audit Commission because of the expertise that it has built up over many years. It seems sensible to have the commission monitor that part of the Bill.
Clause 14(5) allows the Secretary of State to take over the running of a local authority service, an extraordinary power to be proposed by a Government who pose as the champion of local democracy and accountability. The Government want the power, and they will certainly be able to drive the measure through under the guillotine and by use of their majority. However, amendments Nos.80 and 42 would oblige the Secretary of State to announce in advance a time limit to his function, or to seek a new order before he continues in this role. They would also require him to say in advance how he would go about remedying the failure that he felt had required his intervention.
That is no more than the Secretary of State requires of the authorities under the Bill. If they must show that they are tackling issues in a clear and structured way, it is much more necessary for central Government, who are not accountable in quite the same way to local people, to do precisely the same.
The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction without having received a report from the Audit Commission to the effect that remedial action was necessary. He would require no external evidence or sanction before intervening in a draconian fashion in local affairs. Amendment No.81 would prevent such arbitrary action.
I shall deal only briefly with amendment No.5, as it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, one of whom may wish to deal with it in detail. It appears to make the Secretary of State accountable to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.
Clause 14(8) enables the Secretary of State to issue direction without reference to the constraints imposed by earlier subsections. That would give him unprecedented power to intervene in matters that are properly the affair of local authorities without reference to Parliament or the Audit Commission as impartial arbiters of best value. Amendments Nos.49, 86 and 87 rein in the Secretary of State to ensure that he is guided by the Audit Commission.
Finally, amendment No.88 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with the same bodies that local authorities must consult when they draw up best value strategies. As with amendment No.48, it imposes on the Secretary of State the same conditions that he imposes on local authorities. If he is to be directly responsible for the functions of a best value authority, he should prove that he has a plan that will satisfy the local community in whose name he intends to act.
This large group of amendments covers two clauses. The Opposition's guiding light throughout the Bill's progress has been that the powers demanded by the Secretary of State are extensive and sometimes draconian.Limits should be set on them. There should be a tighter rein on the Secretary of State' s powers and on how and when he can exercise them.

Mr. Sanders: I beg to move amendment No.5 in the name of my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment.Pe group all the amendments together. The only amendment that has been moved is the first amendment in the group, in the name of the hon.Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson). The hon. Gentleman may wish to say simply that he supports the amendment, to avoid confusion.

Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.Of course we support the amendment that the hon.Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson) has just moved.
Amendment No.5 leaves out lines 33 to 43 and removes the power of the Secretary of State to operate by order of mandamus. It would replace that power with a process of resolution approved by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.Yesterday, we received the latest version of the protocol between central and local government. The existence of the protocol implies some consultation and agreement on the way forward, but clause 14(8), (9) and (10) are the ultimate coercive powers that the Secretary of State would have if this part of the Bill were not amended. He would have the power to determine urgency and need for action without reference to the House. The only reference to the local authority required is that he has to inform it of what action he has taken—he does not have to consult it.
The Minister referred to referendums. They are a form of consultation. Any Minister in the new regime would not look kindly on a local authority that simply informed its local residents of its council tax rather than consulting them. What is supposedly good for local government does


not seem to be replicated for central Government in the Bill. The LGA still has concerns about the protocol, especially on the use of urgency powers, of which notice does not even need to be given to local authorities.
We believe that clause 14 is crucial. Although our amendment would not remove as many of the new centralising powers given to the Secretary of State as we would like, it at least provides a solid mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of those powers.

Mr.Lansley: I am grateful for this opportunity briefly to speak to four amendments within the group. Amendments Nos.46 and 47 are not complementary but competitive. For reasons on which I will not elaborate because my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson) referred to them, there is everything to be said for tweaking the powers of the Secretary of State. There will naturally be some creative tension between local authorities and the Government about the manner in which performance indicators or standards are to be set.Local authorities might well take reassurance from the fact that the indicators would be set in terms recommended by the Audit Commission. Fortunately, the reputation of the Audit Commission is such that hon.Members on both sides of the House ought to be happy that its history and knowledge of local authorities well equip it to recommend satisfactorily to the Secretary of State the basis on which the standards should be set.
I recognise that Ministers are normally not minded to circumscribe themselves, so if they are not minded to go as far as accepting amendment No.46, I commend amendment No.47 to them. If the Audit Commission takes the trouble to recommend performance indicators or standards to the Secretary of State and he chooses not to follow them, local authorities will find it helpful if any order published is accompanied by reasons why the Secretary of State has gone down a different path. That will remove any sense that the indicators or standards are arbitrary.Of course, Ministers never behave arbitrarily.
Amendments Nos.48 and 49 also relate to clause 14. Amendment No.49 has the purpose of removing those subsections that allow the Secretary of State to act urgently without consulting and simply to notify the relevant authority and such persons as the Secretary of State sees fit of what he has chosen to do and why he has chosen to do it urgently. The amendment would replace those subsections with a different mechanism, the purpose of which would not be to constrain the Secretary of State in acting in an urgent manner, but would require him to go through a consultation period, although obviously on a highly accelerated basis, without observing the one-month period that would otherwise apply for consultation.
I admit that amendment No.49 would not enable the Secretary of State to act quite as swiftly as the Bill presupposes, but local authorities would find it a great deal more satisfactory procedurally if the Secretary of State consulted—albeit in the space of hours rather than days or weeks—and then acted, rather than acted and then notified. There is a big difference between those two things.
For my money, amendment No.48 is the most important in the group, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board. If a report from the Audit Commission

deemed an authority to be failing to exercise its functions, and the Secretary of State took it over, it would be incumbent on him to say how he proposed to exercise that function, how he would remedy the failings set out in the report, and the period during which he expected to exercise the function. The amendment does not bind the Secretary of State to exercise that function for any specific period or in a specific way, but at least in this culture of measurement the Secretary of State will be measured at the outset as to the manner in which he takes over a function, how he exercises it and for how long.
I commend amendments No.48 and 47 to the Government and hope that, even at this late stage, they are willing to take them on board.

Ms Armstrong: This is a rather large group of amendments so I will get through them as quickly as I can. I shall start with Government amendment No.6. In Committee, we gave a commitment to the hon.Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) —I am sorry that she is not here, because this is her moment of triumph—to table an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult widely before he issues an order specifying performance indicators and standards. Amendment No.6 fulfils that commitment. It is a commitment that we gladly give, as it has always been the Government's intention to undertake wide and inclusive consultation on the likely suite of national performance indicators and standards for best value. It is a commitment that we freely gave in both local government White Papers that we published last year.
I reiterate what was said in Committee.Performance indicators cannot and will not be developed in isolation or without the interest of those in the field, including the best value pilots and any successors. The consultation will be wide-ranging and open. It will include best value authorities, representative bodies of the private and voluntary sectors, of consumer organisations, trade unions and other bodies that the Secretary of State considers will usefully contribute to the debate. Such consultation will take place before we initially specify national performance indicators and standards for best value and subsequently when we propose any changes to the order. I hope that the amendment, and the commitments given in the White Papers, in Committee and today will reassure Liberal Democrat Members of our commitment to consult on national performance indicators and standards for best value. I urge hon.Members to accept the amendment.
8 pm
Amendment No.46 would give the Audit Commission an effective veto over what the suite of performance indicators and standards specified by the Secretary of State would contain. It would cut across much of the purpose of clause 4 and undermine the wider consultation process that the Government will undertake before specifying performance indicators and standards. I urge hon.Members not to press the amendment to a vote.
Amendment No.64 would give the Secretary of State power to specify those bodies whose views he will have regard to when specifying performance indicators and standards. The Bill, as it currently stands, provides for the Secretary of State to have regard only to recommendations made to him by the Audit Commission. It is because of the commission's unique role in best value


and its experience in monitoring local authority performance that it is included in clause 4(3)(b).Under best value, it will be responsible for auditing best value performance plans and undertaking best value inspections. It will retain a power, under the Audit Commission Act 1998, to set performance indicators. It will also have had considerable experience of setting performance indicators to monitor the performance of local authorities. The requirement for the Secretary of State to consult other organisations has been catered for by amendment No.6, and I hope that hon.Members will not see the necessity to press amendment No.64.
Amendment No.47 would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for his specifying any performance indicators or standard in a manner contrary to a recommendation received from the Audit Commission. We are considering the best way to publish the conclusions of the consultation process that we will undertake before the Secretary of State specifies national performance indicators and standards. However, I hope that hon.Members will understand why I do not warm to the amendment. The Government should say how they have reacted to the views of consultees, but that should not be limited to explaining their reaction solely to the Audit Commission's recommendations; it should also include the conclusions of other consultees. The Government will consider how best to put that into effect, and the debate will help us in those considerations.
With regard to amendments Nos.60, 61 and 62, we discussed performance standards at great length and in great detail in Committee. I hope that I can again reassure hon.Members about how performance standards will be applied and why they are important not only in driving up the performance of best value authorities, but also in providing the high-quality service that the public expect and deserve. The Government are committed to improving local services and ensuring that all people, no matter where they live, have access to, and receive, quality services. Standards and targets will be the key to achieving continuous improvements in service delivery.
The hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley) suggested that we cannot maintain continuous improvement without sacrificing value for money. I invite him to discuss that idea with, for example, the British Retail Consortium, whose members know that unless they improve their service year on year and give value for money, they will go out of business. Standards and targets will drive up the performance of local authorities, and put most pressure on those authorities that are performing poorly.
Where there is a clear national requirement, such as new standards for educational attainment for different age groups, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will specify the performance standards that an authority must meet. The White Papers on local government in England and Wales set out that the Government will take a clear lead in setting standards, and the Bill makes provision for that.
The Government do not intend to impose a large number of new standards.Our aim is to specify minimum acceptable levels of service provision in areas where the achievement of particular standards is clearly in the national interest. The Government will consult widely with local government and other interested parties on those areas in which standards will be set, and on what form they will take. The ability to set and change

standards over time will be a key driver of improvement. That power will be used only where there is a clear national interest in setting standards. Standards will be relevant, necessary and appropriate for best value.
In some cases, they will arise from Government targets; for example, if the Government set a target that all authorities should achieve by 2003, all authorities should be performing at that level in 2003. That target might then become a standard to ensure that performance did not subsequently fall below that level. Future targets would ask for improvement above that standard. Standards and targets provide a mechanism for pegging existing levels of performance and ensuring the drive for continuous improvement in service delivery. For those reasons I urge hon.Members not to press the amendments to a vote.
Amendments to clause 14 are also included in the group. Clause 14 is an important part of the Bill and is vital to underpin the success of the best value framework. We realise that these provisions are powerful, but make no apology for that. We want to see all best value authorities making real progress towards continuous improvement and believe that the majority will do so. The enhanced system of audit and inspection will act as an early warning system and help to put best value authorities back on the right track in most cases where problems are starting. However, we need to ensure that we can tackle failure when it occurs. We structured the best value framework carefully to ensure that we will minimise the need for intervention, but there will be times when the Secretary of State or the National Assembly need to act, and there are plenty of precedents in existing local government and other legislation for such action being delegated to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No.5 would require that any direction issued under clause 14 must have secured the approval of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. That proposal is unacceptable; it would impose unnecessary time constraints on the process of intervention and would not enrich or enhance the process. It is not usual for Select Committees to scrutinise individual cases, and that would represent a significant extension of the Select Committee's current remit. It would be particularly inappropriate, and an overreaction, for the Secretary of State to need the Select Committee's consent to issue a direction under clause 14(2)(a) to (c), where the Secretary of State directs an authority to undertake a particular action, such as to prepare or amend a performance plan.
By deleting clause 14(8) and (9), amendment No.5 would also remove the provision, which we inserted by Government amendment in Committee, for the Secretary of State to intervene in urgent cases. As we said then, the Government believe that fast-track intervention is necessary to protect vulnerable groups or individuals.Yesterday, I was pressed by the hon.Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) to say what we would do when, for example, there were serious problems in children's services and the process was not swift enough to protect children. Fast-track intervention will only occur in exceptional cases, where the severity or persistence—

Mr. Chope: Will the right hon.Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I certainly will.

Mr. Chope: The right hon.Lady talks about fast-tracking.Pill she explain why it has taken two years


and two months for her Department to determine a footpath appeal involving St.Leonards and St. Ives parish council?

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon.Lady will not answer that question. It has nothing to do with the amendments before us.

Ms Armstrong: I was trying to respond to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as the hon. Gentleman had just walked into the Chamber, I probably should not have given way to him. I am trying to be fair, but that was not fair to other hon.Members; I apologise to them.
As I said, fast-track intervention is necessary to protect vulnerable groups or individuals. It will occur only in exceptional cases, where the severity or persistence of failure, or the continuing risk of harm or financial loss, show that urgent intervention is necessary. If those circumstances prevail and an authority could reasonably be expected to be aware of the problems but fails to take action to address them, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to intervene without giving the authority concerned the opportunity to make representations about the report as a result of which intervention is proposed, or about the direction proposed. When intervening in that way the Secretary of State need not have regard to any statement of action produced under clause 9(2) but he will have to inform both the authority and its representatives of the intervention that is necessary, and give his reasons for using fast-track procedures.
Whatever the form of intervention, the Secretary of State will act according to the protocol on intervention, which, as the hon.Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned, is currently being discussed with the Local Government Association under the framework for central-local partnership. I am pleased to be able to report that we were able to proceed with this morning's meeting of the central-local partnership. That exercise will set out agreed principles and procedures underpinning intervention.
The Government believe that local democracy and accountability are important and that is why clause 14(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the holding of a local inquiry in which the views of local people can be ascertained, where he believes that to be appropriate. Given that explanation and Opposition Members' comments yesterday on various aspects of the Bill, I hope that they will not feel it necessary to press the amendment. Amendment No.86 would delete the provisions in clause 14 relating to fast-track intervention. For the reasons that I have already given, I ask that it, too, should not be pressed.
Amendment No.49 would alter the fast-track provisions in clause 14 to allow the Secretary of State—or in Pales the National Assembly—to issue a direction under the clause before one month had expired, if he considered the direction sufficiently urgent.Unlike the existing fast-track provisions, which provide the Secretary of State with the discretion to issue a direction without complying with subsections (6) and (7) if he believes the

case is sufficiently urgent, the amendment would allow authorities to retain the right to make representations about the report as a result of which the direction is proposed, and about the direction proposed. That could cause difficulties in extremely urgent cases.
The Government believe that it is important to work with authorities and to provide them with the opportunity to comment on the report and the direction proposed before intervention takes place. I made it absolutely clear in Committee that authorities will have the opportunity at each stage of best value to put their own house in order, and if they do so intervention will never be necessary. However, in cases of severe or persistent failure, where an authority is unwilling or unable to take action to address the failure, there may be a need to intervene very quickly. In such cases, there may not be time to allow authorities to comment on the report and direction proposed. The removal of clause 14(9), would mean that, when the Secretary of State took urgent action, he would not be required to inform the authority and its representatives of his reasons for doing so. I therefore request that hon.Members do not press the amendment.
8.15 pm
In respect of amendment No.88, we agree that, however urgent the case, it is important for interested parties to be kept informed. However, fast-track intervention could lead to a direction from the full range of possibilities, either where the responsibility for the function remained with the authority, or where it was taken over by the Secretary of State. The circumstances of the case would dictate who was best placed to ensure that interested parties were informed and, indeed, consulted as appropriate. In some cases, that might even be included in the direction itself. However, there would always be an immediate and practical need for the authority and its representatives to be kept informed and that is what the Bill provides for. I therefore consider amendment No.88 to be unnecessary.
If I understand correctly the reasons underlying amendment No.79 and it is indeed designed to ensure that only appropriate action is taken, I am sympathetic to its purpose. However, I do not accept that it is necessary. The powers in clause 14 to act in cases of failure are powerful and clearly need to be exercised with care. That is why we are in the process of agreeing with the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities draft protocols that will govern the use of the powers in clause 14 in England. The Welsh Office will be developing a similar protocol with the Welsh LGA. The National Assembly will have responsibility for intervention in Wales and will want to discuss the draft in due course.
The draft protocol recognises that the form and extent of intervention should reflect the type and seriousness of failure and the need for effective improvement. It also recognises other important principles for example, that except in cases of urgency, the authority will normally be given the opportunity to make the necessary improvements itself. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that. However, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to make the amendment. In the first place, although I blame no one for it, the amendment is flawed in that it covers only those powers contained in clause 14(2), unlike the protocol, which will cover all the powers contained in the clause. Secondly, it is


unnecessary, because the Secretary of State is bound to exercise his powers in a reasonable way and such decisions could be tested by judicial review. Again, I ask hon.Members not to press the amendment.
Clause 14(5) contains powerful provisions giving the Secretary of State the fullest means possible to ensure that serious and persistent cases of failure can be addressed to meet the needs of local people. As we have discussed already, any action taken would be in keeping with the nature and degree of failure. We expect that cases in which the Secretary of State takes over responsibility for exercising a function on behalf of an authority will be rare. In cases of persistent failure, it is likely that a range of measures will have already been tried. We recognise that, in the event of such powers being exercised, a range of parties would have an interest. We are giving consideration to the best way of ensuring that those with an interest are kept informed in the event of such intervention. Naturally, interested parties would include not only the authority itself and its representatives, but—crucially—employees, local people and users of the service.
Amendment No.48 is unnecessary, because there is no need for an additional provision on the face of the Bill to achieve its aim; the Bill already includes a provision for the Secretary of State to direct an inquiry to be held under section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972. Although we do not accept that amendment of the Bill is necessary, we recognise that, as the hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire said, amendment No.48 raises an important issue. I am happy to consider the matter further and the Government will report back at a later stage of the passage of the Bill.
In respect of amendment No.80, it is an extension of the principle of proportionality that the Secretary of State should not take over a function of an authority for longer than is necessary. That is recognised in the draft protocol, which describes the way in which the Secretary of State will monitor the function and consider whether the authority is in a position to resume and sustain effective responsibility for it.
It may be that the date by which the intervention will be terminated can be reasonably estimated from the outset. That is why subsection (5)(a) provides for a date to be specified in the direction. However, it must be recognised that intervention under subsection (5) is likely to be in the most serious circumstances. Although there must be a diagnosis of how the proposed intervention will help to address the failure, it may not be possible to determine how long it will take to put things right.
If there were a constraint on the Secretary of State to include a date in the direction, it would have no practical effect. It might merely lead to an artificial date being included. Nothing would prevent a further direction or series of directions being issued. It is better for all concerned for considered and timely monitoring to take place in accordance with the principles in the draft protocol.1 therefore urge hon.Members not to move amendment No.80.
Amendment No.77 would severely limit the circumstances in which intervention could take place. Not only would the Secretary of State's discretion to determine the circumstances in which intervention may take place be removed, but a requirement that intervention must be based on an Audit Commission report produced under clause 13 would be introduced.
By limiting the trigger for intervention to Audit Commission reports and excluding reports produced by other inspectorates, such as Ofsted or the social services inspectorate, the amendment undermines the work of these inspectorates and precludes their reports from having a major role in informing the process of enforcing best value policy.
The amendment would also remove the possibility of intervention being triggered by evidence which has emerged from other sources, such as public complaints. We envisage that intervention will in most cases be triggered by a report, but in some instances other evidence may be critical and might provide the basis for intervention. For example, evidence of serious public harm or risks to vulnerable groups may emerge from public complaints or a prominent event. In these cases it may not be desirable for the Secretary of State to wait for an inspection report to be produced before any action can be taken. Examples were given last night that exemplified the points that I am making. I therefore recommend that amendment No.77 should not be pressed.
Amendment No.78 presumes that all intervention under clause 14 will be based on an Audit Commission report, as proposed in amendment No.77. I have already explained why I think that is unacceptable. It is important that the authority concerned has the opportunity to make representations about any report as a result of which intervention is proposed. The Bill already provides for this under subsection (6)(a) in all but the most urgent of cases. I have explained why that provision is not appropriate in urgent cases. I therefore recommend that amendment No.78 is not pressed.
The aim of amendment No.81 is to require that a direction issued under clause 14 must always be based on a report and not on evidence that has emerged from other sources. However, the amendment would not have that effect. Instead, its effect would be that in cases where intervention is based on an inspection report, the authority would retain the right to make representations about the report. In cases where there is no such report, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would still be able to issue a direction under clause 14, but would not need to allow the authority to make representations about this direction.
As I have mentioned, the Government believe that the Secretary of State should retain the ability to issue directions based on evidence emerging from sources other than reports and welcome the fact that the amendment does not secure that effect. It is a principle of the draft protocol that such evidence should always be clear. I hope that Opposition Members will withdraw amendment No.81.
It is important that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to determine when urgent intervention may be justified. As I mentioned earlier, the triggers for intervention may be reports from other inspectorates or evidence that has emerged from other sources. When the Government intervene in urgent cases, it will be to protect the interests of local people. By precluding certain sources from providing evidence which could justify fast-track intervention, amendment No.87 would limit the Secretary of State's ability to protect vulnerable groups from harm. I am sure that that is not the intention. I therefore hope that the amendment, along with the others which have


been discussed in this complex and extensive group, will not be pressed. I will move Government amendment No.6 at the appropriate stage.

Mr.Paterson: As the Minister has rightly said, this is quite a complex set of amendments. I am grateful to her for taking such trouble to deal with the amendments one by one. I am sure that the right hon.Lady will agree that some interesting points have been raised during the debate. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley), who made several valid points on the amendments with which he was particularly concerned.
I was pleased that the Minister at least recognised that clause 14 provides strong powers for the Secretary of State. There can be no disagreement about that. We still feel strongly that there is much nannying of local authorities inherent in the powers set out in clause 14 and in the Bill generally. I am disappointed that the right hon.Lady has not been able to accept our amendments, although I appreciate, as is always the way with these quite technical issues, that some of our amendments may not have had the effect that we intended. In some instances they may have had almost the opposite effect.
I am grateful for the right hon.Lady's specific assurances on Government amendment No.6. We intend to hold her and the Government to them in practice. If we are not to have more tightly drawn protections in the Bill, her assurances will stand proxy for them. We shall want to see how they work out in practice.
I was pleased with the right hon.Lady's undertaking on amendment No.48. That was very helpful. We look forward to hearing more about that in due course.
The Minister touched on the draft protocol. We have not had a major discussion of it, but it is in many ways an extraordinary document. As I understand it, the protocol attempts to set out how the powers will be exercised, and that it is in no sense legally binding. In the event of a dispute between central and local government, it will be interesting to see to what extent the courts will take it into account in coming to a conclusion. Again, as I understand it, there is no formal scope for parliamentary scrutiny of such a protocol. It is probably comparable with the concordats that are being established between Government Departments and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is similar to what I believe are called executive agreements in the United States. I think that it can be fairly described as a new form of executive action that is immune from democratic control.

Ms Armstrong: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that point. If he did, he would be saying that local government should have more say over what happens to it. The protocol is being established with the Local Government Association and not between Government agencies. The association, too, has democratic accountability. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are responsible for holding the Government to account, but we want to move forward with local government. It was our intention anyway, but local government pushed for a protocol to be established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not associate himself with opposition to the principle of a protocol prevailing in these circumstances.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, although I did not particularly want to develop a substantial argument at this stage of our debate. The Minister said nothing contrary to my assertion that if there is a legal dispute, the protocol may or may not have any effect. I appreciate that we are in uncharted waters.Protocols and concordats are a relatively foreign import into our system and we must, perhaps, build up a body of experience and law before we can take a black and white view of them.
We can legitimately complain that the protocol was not made available earlier and more widely. However, it is an interesting concept.
If what was set out in the draft protocol is important and if, as I understand the Minister to be saying, it is necessary to define the Secretary of State's powers and, more precisely, how they are to be exercised, there is no reason not to specify in the Bill those restrictions on the Secretary of State's power and discretion. I shall not labour the point now—I suspect that we shall return to it in future.
I shall end on a happier note and repeat my gratitude to the Minister for dealing in such detail with all our points. We are sorry that she has not accepted our amendments, but we are grateful for the assurances and undertakings that she has given.On the strength of those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No.6, in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
?() Before specifying performance indicators or standards the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit.'.— [Mr.Robert Ainsworth.)

Clause 5

BEST VALUE REVIEWS

Mr.Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No.35, in page 4, line 5, after 'section', insert
'unless it can satisfy the Secretary of State that there is a reason why this should not be done.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.65, in page 4, leave out line 10.
No.37, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
'(e) the upper cost limit of conducting a review.'.
No.38, in clause 6, page 5, line 43, at end insert—
`(m) to provide details of the cost of completing the plan.'.
No.94, in clause 7, page 6, line 27, at end insert—
'(g) indicating clearly the financial savings (if any) and quality improvements (if any) achieved from past plans, and to be delivered from the current plan.'.

Mr.Jenkin: Amendment No.35 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he has not been able to attend the Chamber for most of this afternoon's proceedings owing to the rather late date on which this business was fixed. I am sure that the House will forgive him for that.


The amendment concerns the obligation in clause 5 on best value authorities to conduct best value reviews
in accordance with the provisions of any order made under this section.
The amendment would add the caveat that there should be an obligation to conduct a best value review unless there is agreement between the authority and the Secretary of State that such a review should not be conducted. I understand that the amendment would make a substantive change to the Bill, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and the other amendments.
Amendment No.65 would delete clause 5(2)(c), which requires
specified functions to be reviewed in specified financial years.
We are discussing only what the Secretary of State may put into an order about a best value plan. We are testing whether specified functions should be prescribed in that way. A function should be considered in the round, not in specified financial years. I should like the Minister to deal with amendments Nos.65 and 94 in his comments.
Clause 5(4)(e) refers to
other best value authorities and…commercial and other businesses".
They must be considered when a best value plan for reviewing a function is being drawn up. Subsection (4) says:
The Secretary of State may by order specify matters which an authority must include in a review of a function under this section; and in particular an order may require an authority…to assess the competitiveness
of its functions with regard to how similar functions are exercised by those other bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.

Mr. Burstow: I shall not take up too much time because I am also interested in the Minister's response to the amendments, particularly amendment No.35, which would have the added value of tipping the balance back towards the local authority. That would be welcome because clause 5 on best value reviews, which the amendment seeks to alter, and other clauses in this part of the Bill place in the hands of the Secretary of State disproportionate power relating to how best value reviews are to be conducted.
We welcome also amendment No.65, which would remove the requirement for specific functions to be reviewed in specified financial years. That is unnecessarily prescriptive about the way in which best value reviews are to be undertaken. Given the partnerships, protocols and concordats that the Minister described in Committee and again in today's proceedings, it seems to us that clause 5 goes to the heart of the prescriptive nature of the Government's approach.
I want to take this opportunity to say that I have had the chance to read the report of the Committee proceedings on this clause and others, and I was struck by the number of contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard).Unfortunately, I was unable to serve on the Committee because I was serving on another Committee. I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for their hard work.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I hope that the Government will be encouraging and say that they will support amendment No.35 in particular, as it tilts the balance back to local authorities and away from central Government prescription.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pales Mr.Jon Owen Jones): I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Amendment No.35 is designed to add an additional factor by which a best value authority could satisfy the Secretary of State that it should not carry out a best value review of its functions.
Hon.Members will be aware that one of the fundamental requirements of the duty of best value is that authorities will have to carry out fundamental performance reviews of all their functions over a period, probably five years, so that we ensure that continuous improvements are made to all services, not just to those where there are serious shortcomings. That should apply to all local authorities across the board, so that a proper comparison of performance is made between authorities on a common basis. Neither local people nor the Government would be prepared to accept any exceptions.
The amendment has the potential to create a bureaucratic machinery for the Secretary of State, who would need to evaluate all cases made by local authorities, to satisfy himself that the reasons given for not carrying out the review were valid. We could not rule out some local authorities using that as a means of delaying or avoiding reviews, at least in the short term. That would be unacceptable to all concerned, not least to the local community, who would lose out.
Amendment No.65 would remove the flexibility and discretion that the Secretary of State needs to specify functions to be reviewed in specified financial years, as circumstances may warrant. If, for instance, a local authority should try to delay or avoid conducting the reviews of some of its services, or should face some particular crisis in the way that it provides its services, it is essential for the Secretary of State to have powers to direct the local authority to carry out those services quickly and effectively. It would be the local communities who would be most disadvantaged if the amendment were allowed to stand.
Amendments Nos.37 and 38 relate to the costs of best value performance reviews and local performance plans. The amendments recognise that some compliance costs are likely to be involved in best value reviews and local performance plans. However, the drive for continuous improvement will deliver efficiency gains of around 2 per cent, which would far outweigh those costs.
I have been asked to comment particularly on amendment No.94, which would add to the work of the auditor in his audit of performance plans. In auditing a performance plan, the auditor is required to state whether the plan has been prepared and published in accordance with legislation and guidance.
Clause 6 sets out clearly that, in preparing plans, authorities must summarise their past performance with regard to performance indicators; compare their performance with previous financial years; summarise their success in meeting performance standards; and summarise their progress towards performance targets.
An authority that has met the requirements of the Bill will have indicated the financial savings and the quality improvements that it achieved as a result of past plans, and those delivered by current plans. If the auditor is prepared to state that the plan has been prepared in such a way that it meets the requirements of clause 6, he will have ensured, by default, that financial savings and quality improvements are indicated.
The amendments are, therefore, unnecessary and I ask hon.Members to withdraw them.

Mr.Jenkin: I am not entirely convinced that amendment No.94 does not add anything to the Bill. By specifying that savings might be made, it might encourage best value performance plans to produce savings, which would improve value for money—or best value, as the Minister prefers to call it. However, in the interests of brevity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr.Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No.68, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'other' to end of line 30 and insert 'parties'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.69, in page 4, line 31, leave out from 'other' to 'about' in line 32 and insert 'parties'.

Mr.Jenkin: The amendments refer to clause 5, under which best value authorities must conduct best value reviews, and subsection (4) under which
The Secretary of State may by order specify matters which an authority must include in a review of a function".
The order that the Secretary of State may draw up must include the requirement to assess the competitiveness of performance against various other parties. Those parties are specified in the Bill as
other best value authorities and commercial and other businesses".
We suggest that an authority's performance should be measured against that of other parties, without those being specified. Similarly, in clause 5(4)(f), which sets out the obligation
to consult other best value authorities and commercial and other businesses",
we believe that the word "parties" should replace the word "businesses". I should be grateful for the right hon.Lady's comments.

Ms Armstrong: Amendments Nos.68 and 69 betray a misunderstanding by Opposition Members. It was never our intention to make an exhaustive list of all the bodies that the Secretary of State may require best value authorities to consult, or against which they should assess their competitiveness. Any future order may go wider if there is a case for it to do so. However, to be useful and sensible, consultation must be meaningful. It may not be appropriate for it to include a wide range of bodies. There needs to be a link to those that can most usefully assist best value authorities in discharging the general duty.
In clause 5(4)(e) and (f) we have listed the most obvious bodies against which a best value authority should compare its performance in exercising a function. Naturally, those bodies are other best value authorities and private sector bodies. Best value authorities should consult with such bodies and make comparisons in respect of their competitiveness.
It is difficult to see how the current description omits anything of substance. The term "parties", which is the subject of the amendment and a substitute for our definition, defines nothing in particular. I am told that it is not helpful in achieving what the hon.Member for North Essex (Mr.Jenkin) is looking for.Using that term could send the wrong message about the breadth of consultation and mean that the essential link to those who can input most value to the process is lost.
The House will remember that, yesterday, hon.Members pressed the point that consultation, if undertaken too loosely, could be expensive. We are concerned that the consultation should be appropriate and that the authority should consult the appropriate people—those who need to be consulted—during the process. It is important that we restrict the duty to such people.
We would expect the existing definition to cover organisations such as chambers of commerce, about which the hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley) was concerned.
It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [24 March], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment negatived.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Clause 9

RESPONSE TO AUDIT

Amendments made: No.16, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'as soon as practicable'.
No.17, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
?()A statement required by subsection (3) shall be prepared—

(a) before the end of the period of 30 working days starting with the day on which the authority receives the report,or
(b) if the report specifies a shorter period starting with that day, before the end of that period.'.

No.18, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'as soon as practicable' and insert—

'(a) before the end of the period of 30 working days starting with the day on which the authority receives the report, or
(b) if the report specifies a shorter period starting with that day, before the end of that period.
() For the purposes of this section a working day is a day other that—

(a) a Saturday or a Sunday,
(b) Christmas Day or Good Friday, or
(c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.'— [Mr.Meale.]

Clause 13

REPORTS

Amendment made: No.7, in page 9, line 26, at end insert
',and—
(b) may publish a report and any information in respect of a report.'—[Mr.Meale.]

Clause 18

CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Amendments made: No.8, in page 12, line 17, at end insert—
()provide for a matter to cease to be a non-commercial matter for specified purposes or to a specified extent;'.
No.9, in page 12, line 25, leave out
?,by virtue of an order under this section, not a noncommercial matter,'
and insert
'the subject of an order under this section'. —[Mr.Meale.]

Clause 21

AUDIT COMMISSION

Amendments made: No.19, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
() The Audit Commission may delegate any of its functions under this Part to—

(a) a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission), or
(b) an officer or servant of the Commission.'.

No.20, in page 13, line 29, at end insert—
() After section 75(1)(e) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (Housing Corporation and, in relation to Wales, Secretary of State: general functions) there shall be added—
(f) to provide on request, to such extent as the Relevant Authority considers appropriate, advice and assistance to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales in relation to the Commission's functions under Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value)
() The Audit Commission may make payments to the Housing Corporation or the Secretary of State in respect of advice and assistance provided under section 75(1)(f) of the Housing Associations Act 1985.'—[[Mr Meale.]

Clause 24

GUIDANCE

Amendments made: No.21, in page 14, line 38, after first `to' insert 'or in respect of.
No.22, in page 14, line 38, after second `to' insert 'or in respect of.
No.23, in page 14, line 40, after 'to' insert 'or in respect of.
No.24, in page 15, line 4, at end insert—
() Before issuing guidance under section (Coordination of inspections, &c) the Secretary of State shall, in addition to the consultation required by subsection (2)(c) above, consult the persons or bodies concerned.'—[Mr Meale.]

Clause 25

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No.10, in page 15, line 5, leave out `18 and 21' and insert
`19 and 21 to 24'. —[Mr Meale]

Clause 26

ORDER

Amendments made: No.11, in page 15, line 16, after `order', insert `or regulations'.

No.25, in page 15, line 20, leave out 'or 7' and insert
, 7 or (Coordination of inspections, &c), and regulations under section 22,'—[Mr.Meale.]

Clause 31

FINANCE

Amendment made: No.12, in page 17, line 33, at end insert—
() The Secretary of State may make grants to the Audit Commission, out of money provided by Parliament, in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Commission under this Act
() The National Assembly for Wales may make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Commission under this Act—'[Mr.Meale.]

Bill reported, with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [24 March], That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr.Robert Ainsworth.]

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 170

Division No.131]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Austin, John
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beard, Nigel
Caplin, Ivor


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Casale, Roger


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Chaytor, David


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Borrow, David
Clelland, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradshaw, Ben
Coffey, Ms Ann


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cohen, Harry


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Coleman, lain






Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hutton, John


(Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Illsley, Eric


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dismore, Andrew
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggad, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan





Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mounttord, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stringer, Graham


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian 
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Plaskitt, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollard Kerry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase Ken
Truswell, Paul


Quinn Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Radice Giles
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rapson Syd, 
Vaz Keith


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wall ley, Ms Joan


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Wareing, Robert N


(Hamilton S)
Watts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
White, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rowlands, Ted
(Swansea W)


Roy, Frank
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruane, Chris
Wills, Michael


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Shaw, Jonathan
Woolas, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wyatt, Derek


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Greg Pope and Jane Kennedy.


Smith, Angela (Basildon)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Allan, Richard
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brand, Dr Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Breed, Colin


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Norman
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beggs, Roy
Burnett, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burstow, Paul


Blunt, Crispin
Cable, Dr Vincent


Body, Sir Richard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing VI)
Cash, William






Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip



Hancock, Mike


Chope, Christopher
Harris, Dr Evan


Clappison, James
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, John


Collins, Tim
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cotter, Brian
Horam, John


Gran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Johnson Smith,


Evans, Nigel
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Faber, David
Keetch, Paul


Fabricant, Michael
Key, Robert


Fallon, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fearn, Ronnie
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Flight, Howard
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Forsythe, Clifford
Lansley, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Leigh, Edward


Foster, Don (Bath)
Letwin, Oliver


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Lidington, David


Fraser, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Garnier, Edward
Lloyd. Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Loughton, Tim


Gibb, Nick
Luff, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew 

Greenway, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grieve, Dominic
Malins, Humfrey


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mates, Michael





Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Streeter, Gary


May, Mrs Theresa
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Swayne, Desmond


Moore, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, William


Page, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Paterson, Owen
Townend, John


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Prior, David
Trend, Michael


Randall, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Bendel, David
Wallace, James


Robathan, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wardle, Charles


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Waterson, Nigel


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Webb, Steve


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wells, Bowen


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Sanders, Adrian
Willetts, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Willis, Phil


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Woodward, Shaun


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.


Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read Third time and passed.

Kosovo

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr.John Prescott): Earlier this evening, four British aircraft, together with missiles from the submarine HMS Splendid, attacked targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as part of a co-ordinated NATO air strike. Two other aircraft flew supporting missions.
Hon.Members may have heard the Prime Minister's remarks from Berlin earlier this evening, when he said:
I want to pay tribute, at the outset, to our forces. We owe a huge debt to them for their courage, and their professionalism. Tonight, there are families in Britain who will be feeling a real sense of anxiety. They can feel too a real sense of pride at the contribution their loved ones make to peace and stability in Europe.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in echoing those sentiments.
The UK Harriers operated out of Gioia del Colle in Italy. In addition, attacks were mounted by seven United States Air Force B52 bombers from Fairford in Gloucestershire.
The strike in which they participated was a very significant one, involving both air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles and manned aircraft from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain. A number of other allied air forces flew supporting missions.
The targets being attacked in this first phase were mainly elements of the Yugoslavian air defence system, but also included a number of Serbian military facilities related to the repression in Kosovo.
The NATO military action, which has the full support of all 19 member states, is intended to support the political aims of the international community. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
It is, and will continue to be, directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being committed by the Yugoslav army and the Serbian special police force and weakening their ability to continue their repressive strategy.
Two United Nations Security Council resolutions, 1199 and 1203, underpin our actions. Both demanded that the Serbs cease all actions against the civilian population and withdraw the security units used for civilian repression.Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of those UN resolutions.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a quarter of a million Kosovars, more than 10 per cent.of the population, are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces. Sixty-five thousand people have been forced from their homes in the past month, and no fewer than 25,000 in the days since the peace talks broke down. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are disturbing reports of the destruction of whole villages.
Over the past few days, we have all seen harrowing and unforgettable images on the television and in newspapers. The scenes are more reminiscent of the middle ages than of Europe on the eve of the 21st century.
I would remind the House that the decision to initiate air strikes was taken last night only after it became clear that the final diplomatic effort in Belgrade had not met with success and that all efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed.
Over the past year the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has made intensive efforts to seek a peaceful solution.Milosevic has either rejected these approaches or entered into undertakings on which he has subsequently reneged, notably his blatant failure to observe the limits on army and special police numbers in Kosovo.Military force is now the only option.
NATO's position is clear, and was set out in its statement of 30 January. We seek to bring an end to the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement.
Three demands were made at the time, all of which Mr.Milosevic has so far rejected: he has not ended his use of excessive and disproportionate force in Kosovo; he has broken the undertaking that he gave last October to reduce Serb forces in Kosovo to pre-February 1998 levels; and he has so far refused to accept the interim political settlement that was negotiated at the peace talks in France earlier this year.
Tonight the NATO alliance—19 nations of which 13 flew their aircraft tonight—has backed its words with action. It has hit hard and it will continue to hit hard until its military objectives are achieved.
What happens next is up to Mr.Milosevic. It remains open to him to show at any time that he is ready to meet the demands of the international community. The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement. We hope that the Yugoslav people will understand that this is the only practical basis on which to move forward without further bloodshed.
I take this opportunity tonight to address a warning to those in the Yugoslav army and other forces who may be in receipt of orders to repress the Albanians in Kosovo: "Do not assume that you can carry out such activity with impunity.You have a personal responsibility not to exceed the bounds of international law.You run the risk of being prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague if you do so."
I also address the Kosovar Albanians: "You have had the courage to commit yourselves to the path of peace. It is imperative that you remain committed to that approach and refrain from provocative actions in the days to come."
Neither NATO nor the United Kingdom is waging war against the people of Yugoslavia. We will make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.Our objective is to reduce the human suffering and violence against the civilian population of Kosovo. We seek to bring to an end the human tragedy now unfolding.
We know the risks of action and we salute the bravery of our service men and women who are undertaking these operations on our behalf. To the families of the brave men and women of our armed forces involved in this action—and indeed to the British people as a whole—I say this: we should remind ourselves that history has proved time and time again that standing up to aggression is the only way to stop such brutal leaders.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday:
If Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk, but the probability of re-igniting unrest in Albania, of a destabilised Macedonia, of almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia, and of further tension between Greece and Turkey. Strategic interests for the whole of Europe are at stake." —[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol.328, c.161.]
We, as fellow Europeans, cannot contemplate, on our own doorstep, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
This is indeed a grave moment. Those who have doubted NATO's resolve have been shown to be wrong. We are prepared to see this through. We do not expect that air attacks will lead to an instant end to the brutality in Kosovo-Yugoslavia has a substantial military machine and is under the control of a ruthless man. But our attacks will make it clear to the president and his security forces that if they continue to use excessive force in Kosovo, they will pay a very high price indeed.

Mr.Peter Lilley: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. As he says, this is a grave moment and our forces are engaged in a perilous mission. We join him in giving our armed forces our full support and we have total confidence in their skill, courage and ability. We share with their families and loved ones the combination of pride and anxiety that they must be feeling.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we support the Government in the action that they have taken. We also entirely support and endorse the warning that the Prime Minister has given to those who may contemplate using disproportionate and inhumane methods in the province of Kosovo.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the action is aimed at military targets and that every effort will be made to avoid civilian casualties?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—even if it is not appropriate to spell them out in public—that NATO has clear criteria by which it will judge the success of its action? In view of the accusation by Russia that this is an act of aggression, will he take the opportunity to set out clearly for the House the legal basis for NATO's action? In view of the massive movements of refugees to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what action the Government are taking to help the Governments of Albania and Macedonia cope with the consequences of this tide of human misery?
Tomorrow's debate will allow the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to update the House, and will allow Members to discuss this matter in more detail. However, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed as developments unfold?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the support offered by the right hon. Gentleman—which is shared on both sides of the House—for the Government's action. I can confirm that our targets are totally military, and not civilian. I understand the concern of the Russians about the legal justification—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—but the use of force is justified under international law to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster. We believe that what is happening

in Kosovo could be such a disaster, and that is the legal justification for our action on this occasion. We will review what we can do to help Macedonia and Albania, and perhaps in the debate tomorrow we can give further information to the right hon. Gentleman. The House can be assured that we will continue to keep it informed, as we have tried to do this evening by reporting to it on the very first occasion when we could make a statement.

Mr. Donald Anderson: President Milosevic is a loser. He was a loser in Bosnia, when he could have emerged with a much better deal, and an excellent deal was available to him at Rambouillet.Ultimately, he will lose. What lines of communication are still open to him? Is the deal that was on the table at Rambouillet still available to him?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that the deal is still available, and everybody would want to see it pursued and achieved. At the moment, we are trying to prevent a humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo.Our lines of communication are the normal ones through the various UN bodies and organisations. We will be available to be informed if there is any change of mind but, at the moment, the NATO action clearly is to prevent such a tragedy and to prevent the Yugoslav authorities from deploying their military might, as they are at the moment.

Mr.Menzies Campbell: This is clearly not the occasion upon which to probe the Government on the precise nature of the operations that have been undertaken, or which may be undertaken in future. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is right for us to express our support for our military, and to express the hope for the safe return of all the aircraft and aircrew involved in the operations this evening? Does he agree that other, wider issues can be left until the debate tomorrow? Is it not right that the House should be in sombre mood, because to ask our young men and women to risk their lives in aid of political objectives is a sombre and anxious request to make of them?
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the scenes had been reminiscent of the middle ages. Have they not also been reminiscent of the second world war, which we believed had been fought to put an end to that kind of repression? Finally, will he confirm that, at any time, Mr.Milosevic has it within his power to bring an end to the operations by bringing an end to his own opposition to the political settlement which remains on the table?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the right hon. And learned Gentleman's expression of support and for his understanding of the difficulty concerning how much information can be given on these occasions, which I am sure the House fully appreciates. We hope for the safe return of our aircraft, and if that happens in the latter minutes of this discussion, I shall of course inform the House. Everyone would want that to be the case and will bear in mind the great contribution of our soldiers and aircrew.
This is indeed a sombre moment and, on reflection, there are comparisons with the lead-up to the second world war, but we would do best to keep those memories in the back of our mind and learn the lesson that if we appease dictators they go on to create even greater


mayhem and repression. We must say to Mr.Milosevic, "You started it, and you have the chance to end it. We have to make it clear that we consider your actions repressive and offensive. We want to stop them, and that is what we are doing with our NATO forces."

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the only body in the world that can deal with an humanitarian crisis is the United Nations itself, by organising a peace conference without the threat or the use of force and providing aid on the necessary scale? Is he also aware that NATO does not act on behalf of the international community, and never has done?
People of my generation, who lived through the 1930s and the 1940s, feel a sense of utter shame and disgust that the British Government should be breaking its solemn commitments to the United Nations and launching air attacks on Serbia, which was praised to the skies during the war, because it was the Serbian resistance to Hitler that gave us the opportunity of the victory that we secured. To demonise Serbia now, when Yugoslavia was deliberately broken up by western policy makers, is to mislead the public into a crusade that does not exist.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that, regardless of whether they were allies many years ago, the Serbs today are murdering an awful lot of people in Kosovo. I understand that he is talking of 50 years ago and the concerns of the 1930s and 1940s, but there were great debates in our movement at that time about Hitler and about hawking one's conscience about. I am bound to say that we were wrong not to have dealt with appeasement at that time, and I hope that we have learned our lesson. That is why we are doing what we are doing today.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The whole House is united in condemning repression, from wherever it comes, and pays tribute to our troops. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, despite the constraints that we are naturally under, there is genuine concern about the effect of bombing a sovereign, independent nation, about the innocents who may lose their lives and about what will happen if the bombing fails to shake the dictator's resolve?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there can and will be no question of sending in ground troops, and will he inform the House of his plan for the future if bombing fails to achieve its object?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think the whole House shares concerns about what may happen, but I have made it clear that the targets are military, not civilian. As for innocent people losing their lives, that is happening to many thousands in Kosovo and was happening throughout the time of negotiations, when the repression of innocent people, many of whom were driven out of their homes, was continuing as we tried to find an agreement.One has to make a judgment.
The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we have no intention of sending in ground forces to fight a war in Kosovo.Our forces are in the region to support a settlement, if agreed, and not to fight their way in, which

would require more than 100,000 troops and risk high casualties. There is not general agreement in favour of such action.Our targets are specific. They are basically military and we are clear about what we intend to achieve.

Mr. Frank Cook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bombing did not start tonight and that bombing has been going on for some considerable time against the Kosovar Albanians? Does he agree that appeals for dialogue, although they have been heeded and continued, are somewhat futile when one party believes that the only useful dialogue is through the barrel of a gun? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the school of thought that Milosevic needed that armed intervention to protect himself from a backlash among his electorate if he made any concessions on Kosovo? In the fervent hope that that proves to be correct as quickly as possible, will my right hon. Friend tell us what measures might be in train quickly to restore normal relations between ourselves and Russia, which may have been adversely affected in the continuing negotiations?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think the House will agree with my hon. Friend's comments that a great deal of repression was going on in Kosovo before the bombing and during the negotiation of the UN resolutions that made it clear that the Serbs should desist—they failed to do so.Of course we are concerned about relationships with countries such as Russia. We shall maintain those contacts, and those countries have made it clear, both in the UN and other councils, that they deplore the actions that have been taken. While there may be disagreement with the actions that have been taken by NATO today, there is no doubt that those countries do not support the position put forward by Milosevic and his Government.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have considerable support for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Compassion for the humanitarian difficulties that have been faced, including massacres, in the past months—almost years—is worthy of our support on humanitarian grounds. When the Deputy Prime Minister says that military installations are being bombed, does that include the ground forces of the Serbian nation? That is the area that causes us great concern. If we are to intervene and the war is to finish, we want to be certain that not only radar installations and airports are destroyed but that Serbian ground forces are rendered useless and cannot intervene.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on such occasions one does not detail the military targets. That is normal practice. I understand the reasons for his question, but he can be assured that the targets are military ones.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend relay to those pilots who are out there tonight in darkness over Yugoslavia a simple message from the House of Commons? That is that we overwhelmingly support them in their endeavours. They are acting for Britain and we are proud of them.

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made it clear in a powerful way that that is exactly what


the House feels. It has shown in its expressions that we fully support them in the pilots endeavours and admire the courage that they use to achieve them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the great sense of dismay that many in the House feel? Does he agree that we have gone to war without there being a sufficient national interest, without there being a clear understanding of the strategic and political objectives, without there being a proper exit strategy and without the authority of the House? The right hon. Gentleman and the Government will have the support of the House because the credibility of NATO has been put at issue and because our service men are in action, but we should not have been brought to this pass.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. And learned Gentleman would be from his experience of Bosnia at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that these matters are extremely difficult and that our justifications for taking the actions were the ones that I outlined. The national interest is in upholding international law. We act within that international law and the use of force is justified under that law to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster. There is no doubt that that was about to take place and, indeed, has been taking place for some time. Frankly, one must make a judgment: do we want to sit in front of the television, observe what is happening and say, "Is this in the national interest?" I think that the overwhelming majority of the public will see those events and want this Government to do something and, along with other NATO countries, go in to try to stop it. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Bruce George: I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that we recognise the difficulties that we all face in this grave situation. Will he reiterate to those who need to be told that the House overwhelmingly supports the Government and British and NATO forces? Will he ask doubters what consolation it would be to a Kosovan running away from being killed to be able to say that the British Government did not act, but were upholding a precise, legalistic definition of international law? We can be proud of what we are doing.

The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has made clear, the House overwhelmingly supports our forces in this action. We offer our consideration and sympathy to the families of our soldiers, airmen and airwomen. We are proud to be involved in these matters, we have a right to be involved, and our action is based fully on international law. It will help people who are being brutally repressed, and that is the job of a democratic nation. I am proud to belong to a country that is part of an alliance trying to stop that repression.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Deputy Prime Minister should know that there comes a moment at which taking action on humanitarian issues is necessary, whatever doubts we have. The Government have done absolutely the right thing.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the right hon.Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bean) that his views are much more like those that pertained at the time of the

League of Nations than those that currently exist? Will he take note of the fact that all 19 members of NATO—not just America and Britain—are involved in this exercise? Will he consider whether all 19 members have understood the full implications of launching an aerial bombardment on military targets, which may have to be protracted and which may require other measures if political objectives are to be achieved?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that all the Harriers have returned safely. We shall all be pleased about that.
I must tell the hon.Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) that the House of Commons should reflect all points of view. No one can be absolutely sure in his or her judgments, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bean) is entitled to express his view. That is what democracy is about. Differences of opinion are the nature of democracy.
I believe that the 19 nations fully understand the consequences of this action. We shall maintain consensus throughout the action.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can we return to the subject of the Russians, which I raised yesterday with the Prime Minister? Hon.Members who sat in the previous Parliament will remember our Russian-speaking colleague Harold Elletson. He rang me tonight from Moscow to say that the Duma had passed a resolution not discouraging Russians from going to fight for the Serbs. That is alarming.
Even more alarming, however, are suggestions that Russia is prepared to provide Serbia with a supply of arms. Can we be told, factually, what contact there has been with the Russians, what they have said and how contacts might be maintained?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be well aware that Russia agreed with the Security Council resolution that made it clear that Serbia should desist from its terrible actions. The Russians made it absolutely clear that they thought that Yugoslavia was in breach, and was causing a humanitarian catastrophe. While they have made it clear that they do not agree with bombing, I do not believe that they will support the actions of some of their own people to join the Serb forces. We are doing what we believe to be right.Others must make their judgment. Normal contacts will be maintained with other countries through diplomatic channels, as we would wish.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the actions that have begun have in no way compromised the security of British troops already serving in Bosnia and Macedonia?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We have already made it clear that all necessary measures have been taken to protect NATO troops in neighbouring countries from a possible attack by Yugoslav forces. The Yugoslav Government should understand that any attack on those troops would lead to the most serious consequences. That has been made clear by our military commanders. I hope that the Yugoslays understand fully.

Mr.Peter L.Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this House is united in wishing that the action


had not been necessary? We all hope that there will be no civilian casualties, but the simple fact is that civilians were dying in Kosovo as a result of the actions of Milosevic. It is therefore clear that the solution to the problem is for Milosevic to sit down and talk now. The sooner he does that, the sooner the action can cease. We would all welcome his decision to do so.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will recognise that a real humanitarian catastrophe is evolving in Kosovo. It is estimated that more than 25,000 people have fled their homes since Sunday 21 March and that there are 420,000 refugees in and outside Kosovo. I think that the Yugoslav authorities understand all too well exactly the position that we have taken. We should like to see peace. We should like to see them accept the agreements that were negotiated in France. If they did so, the military action could end, but in the meantime we are not prepared to step aside and let them commit atrocities.

Mr.Michael Colvin: Everyone in this House acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and the heavy burden of responsibility on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. At a time when our armed forces are putting their lives at risk, it is necessary to demonstrate solidarity. We wish them well, notwithstanding the reservations that many of us have about this operation. There will be plenty of time to express those reservations tomorrow afternoon during the debate. What will constitute a success in this operation? What will happen if Milosevic does not return to the negotiating table as a result of the air strikes?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of solidarity and support.Of course, these matters are day-to-day judgments, but the objectives of the bombing are clear. They are to curb the ability to attack the people of Kosovo and to disrupt the armed forces of Yugoslavia involved in the violence in Kosovo. We have made it clear that that is the intention of the action that we are taking and we hope that it will have some effect.

Mr. George Galloway: In the interests of balance, will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that one of the reasons for the tremendous suffering and bloodshed in Kosovo in the recent past has been the armed separatist rebellion in the country, and that that is a two-sided, not a one-sided, fight? Given his knowledge and sense of history, will he comment on what the impact on the psyche of the Yugoslav army and people is likely to be of the knowledge that this evening the Luftwaffe, the German air force, is in action over Yugoslav skies — [Interruption.] Hon.Members tut, but hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs were massacred by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe within the lifetime of Members of this House.
Lastly, with that sense of history and with reference to previous wars that the Deputy Prime Minister has made —and given the widespread unease in the House that this action was easier to start than it will be to finish —would he like to predict whether this will all be over by Christmas?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have heard the comments made by the hon.Member. Some of

this inflammatory remarks are not helpful. He refers to history in a limited way. There is a new democratic Germany and it is offering its troops to help save lives in Kosovo. That is a proper democratic objective. I am proud that the Germans have joined in. Nineteen NATO nations have agreed the action and 13 of them, especially Germany, have air forces involved. The House will welcome that. The hon. Gentleman talks of massacres, but many people were being massacred in Kosovo.President Milosevic is the person responsible for those massacres and he is the one who denied autonomy to the people of the area. That is the history of today, not 50 years ago, and the one to which we have to address ourselves.

Rev.Martin Smyth: We understand the concerns expressed in the House, and I believe that I speak for many people, if not all, in Northern Ireland when I say that we are in sympathy with what has happened.Our prayers are with the naval and air forces that are in action. We trust that there will be no need to engage the Army in any action in future, but when the Secretary of State is giving warnings to Milosevic, will he bear in mind what might happen if Milosevic does not listen? Perhaps, the President is saying the same things in Serbia tonight to rally his people. From our experience during the second world war and recently in Northern Ireland, we all know that bombing does not detract from the courage of the people, but strengthens their endeavour.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome the expression of support given by the hon. Gentleman, as I welcome it from all quarters of the House. Whatever concerns there might be that bombing adds to people's resolve, we shall continue to try to achieve agreement and dialogue between disagreeing parties —as we have done for a long time. Indeed, one party had signed up to the agreement in France, but the other decided not to do so. Whenever there is disagreement, one seeks agreement, and in this case we are not prepared to stand aside and observe the tragic consequences that are unfolding in Kosovo. I think that our action is right and, in the main, that is shown by the consensus among the 19 NATO countries.

Mr. Alan Pilliams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, desirable as the suggested United Nations peace conference might be, it would offer nothing to those helpless people who at this very moment are running ahead of the Serbian tank tracks and trying to hide from their death squads? Although we acknowledge and respect the consciences of our hon. Friends who feel that they cannot support what NATO is doing today, most Members of this House could not live with our consciences if we did not support it.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Again, my right hon. Friend is referring to the point I made earlier about diversity of opinion in the House. All of us who have watched these tragic circumstances evolve —especially when we see those events on television —are often asked to find a balance between practical realities and conscience. The Government have decided to join the other 18 NATO nations to prevent such events from taking place. That is a proper balance and we are right to support it.

Mr.John Wilkinson: Do not our service men over and around Yugoslavia tonight deserve


our confidence and our faith rather than our speculations? Will Her Majesty's Government assure the House that they will have the courage to see this matter through until the mission is fully accomplished, namely, that the poor, suffering, oppressed people of Kosovo are granted the opportunity to decide their own political destiny in freedom and in peace?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree very much with the political objective expressed by the hon. Gentleman, as will most Members of the House. However, we are discussing the military objectives that we have set. Those objectives are clear —they are to curb Milosevic ability to attack the people of Kosovo, and to disrupt the armed forces of Yugoslavia and their violence in Kosovo. That is a proper military objective which it is to be hoped may lead to the political results described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is important for hon.Members to express their opinions freely, what is important tonight is that a message expressing the full support of this House goes to the service men and women in our armed forces? Is it not a consequence of doing nothing that the slaughter will continue and the pictures on television to which my right hon. Friend refers will get worse and will be shown more frequently? Will there not be dire consequences for the whole region if we do nothing? I assure my right hon. Friend of my full support, and that of most Members of this House, for the actions that have been taken by the Government.

The Deputy Prime Minister: What has been notable and unsurprising is that the fullest support has been expressed on both sides of the House. There is solidarity for our purpose and unity in support of service people. As my hon. Friend says, watching pictures of slaughter on television leads us to think deeply about the actions that we must take. As he rightly points out, history teaches us that there are consequences for the whole region.Perhaps certain historical lessons are clearly in our minds. This action is right; the military objectives are clear and we shall seek to achieve them.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that there are hon.Members on both sides of the House who have serious reservations about the current strategy's potential for success. However, it is undoubtedly true that the best outcome for all is that the current strategy is a success, so now that our armed forces are in action I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that he, as the representative of our Government, and our armed forces and those of our allies have our full support in making a success of the strategy on which the Government have embarked.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Once again, I am grateful for that expression of support. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, everyone, whatever view they hold on the matter, feels great concern at this time. We need to give our fullest support, and that support has been offered by hon.Members on both sides of the House. We shall work extremely hard and our armed forces will seek to achieve success in the targets and aims we have set for ourselves.

Mr.Robert N. Wareing: Did my right hon. Friend hear the statement issued tonight by

Vuk Draskovic, who is a long-standing political opponent of President Milosevic, stating that the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia will unite all Serbs everywhere in opposing their enemies? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is now extremely likely that the war in Bosnia will be re-ignited and that Serbs in other parts of the former Yugoslavia will unite? While he is about it, can he explain why British foreign policy towards the Serbs in respect of Kosovo differs from our policy toward the Croats in respect of Krajina, where 280,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Many lessons of history have been referred to this evening, but we have to deal with what is happening now, which is that Mr.Milosevic is carrying out a policy that is killing thousands of people in a most horrific way.My hon. Friend suggests that Mr. Draskovic —

Mr. Wareing: Draskovic.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Whatever his name is, he is not the leader of the opposition, but is a Deputy Prime Minister in the Milosevic Government.

Mr. Wareing: He still opposes him.

The Deputy Prime Minister: If he is a Deputy Prime Minister, he does not oppose, but I shall not get into that argument. Clearly, whatever the history and whatever references to that history my hon. Friend wants to make, an overwhelming catastrophe is taking place in Kosovo and we have decided that we cannot simply sit by and watch. We know who is committing those acts and we have decided to attack military targets in order to curb those people's ability to attack the people of Kosovo. That action is right and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I, too, join hon.Members in expressing support for the service men and for the action that is taking place tonight. We clearly had no choice, and it is clearly the right thing to do.
However, there is a grave danger ahead that the conflict will not be contained. The Deputy Prime Minister has given an account of the Russian response during the past few days, but will he tell the House what has been the Russian Government's response to the attack this evening? Given the historical allying of Russia to Serbia, will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what the Government's response would be if the Russian Parliament were to sanction volunteers going to Serbia to aid the Serbs? Is it true or not true that aeroplanes found today were bound for Serbia and came from Russia? Finally, will he tell the House whether or not the Security Council is in session, or plans to be in session?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that Russia has made it clear that it disagrees with the action; that is well known and it is an honourable disagreement. However, the Russians did agree with the UN resolution that made it clear that the Serb actions taking place should not take place, which the Yugoslav authorities have totally ignored. The dialogue will continue and we want it to do so. If the Russians have a decision to make on what further actions they should take, we want to discuss that with them, but it is


their right to make that decision. We have made ours, and we think that it is absolutely right. It is consistent with the UN resolutions.
As for the reports on the Russian aeroplanes, I do not know a great deal about the matter except that it seems to be clouded in mystery and that people are not too sure exactly what happened. We shall, of course, continue with dialogue and discussion within the UN.

Mr. Bill Rammell: This is a grave evening and I do not believe that any Member of the House views the events of this evening lightly. Does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister agree that given the systematic breaking of virtually every commitment and agreement that President Milosevic has previously given, for the international community to do nothing at this stage would be a position wholly lacking in credibility? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that when we are dealing with an evil aggressor, just as in 1939, there comes a point when talking as a means of resolving a conflict is no longer a viable option, and that the decision on when that moment comes is a matter for acute judgment? I believe that the judgment that has been made this evening will be supported by the vast majority of Members and by the vast majority of people in the country.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I believe, like my hon. Friend, that our action is supported overwhelmingly by Members of the House, as we have seen this evening, and by the general public. I believe also that the actions that have been taken by President Milosevic are ones that appal the world, that need to be condemned and that are entirely unacceptable. I further believe that the judgment that we have had to exercise will be shown to be correct. I hope that it will lead to a better situation. At least it offers the people of Kosovo hope of escape from the repression that they now face. That is the least that we can do, that is what we have embarked upon, and I think that it is right to do so.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall be returning to these matters tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

NATIONAL LOTTERY

That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVELEGES

That the draft International Mobile Satellite Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved —[Br. Hanson.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: We move on to motion 14.

Mr. David Hanson: Not moved. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have business to do. Will hon.Members sit down? A little courtesy here would do very well.

PETITION

Royal Hospital Haslar

Mr.Peter Viggers: Earlier today, a delegation from Hampshire took to 10 Downing street a petition with 50,000 signatures. This evening, it is my privilege to produce to the House a parliamentary petition that similarly has 50,000 signatures. Both of those petitions are related to the retention of our only military hospital, which is the Royal hospital Haslar, which is in my constituency. All the people who have signed the petitions care deeply about the retention of our only tn-service centre of medical excellence.My constituents are profoundly concerned about the prospective loss of their local hospital.
The parliamentary petition is a most unusual one. It is, I think, in exemplary form, and I think that the House will appreciate it.

Madam Speaker: It looks very pretty.

Mr.Viggers: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an attempt by my constituents and others to put in graphic form their deep concern about the present issue. I shall read the words of the petition, which speak for themselves
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the Citizens of Gosport, Fareham and surrounding areas, and others throughout the United Kingdom who are concerned about the future of the Royal Hospital Haslar and Defence Medical Services.

Sheweth
That Royal Hospital Haslar has provided medical services for Service personnel and civilians since 1753; that it currently treats 111,000 patients a year and 27,000 Accident and Emergency cases; that since 1994 Haslar Hospital has operated as the sole tri-Service hospital and centre of excellence for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; that there is no possibility of alternate medical provision being made in the Gosport area before the closure of Royal Hospital Haslar which could be as early as 2002.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do resolve and instruct Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its proposals to close the Royal Hospital Haslar; and instead to use the facilities of the Royal Hospital Haslar in a new partnership with the National Health Service in order to continue medical cover of the highest order for the citizens of the Gosport area; and to maintain the Royal Hospital Haslar as a centre of excellence for Defence Medical Services.

Most unusually, the petition has been sealed by the seals of the borough of Gosport, the borough of Fareham, the borough of Havant, the city of Portsmouth and Hampshire county council, which is a symbol of the exceptional concern of the community.
To lie upon the Table.

Branded drugs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. Peter Bradley: It is hard, on an evening such as this, to turn one's mind away from the events in Kosovo. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to expose in this House two lawful but, in my view, improper, scams —I can think of no better word to describe them —which last year plunged 78 of the 100 health authorities in England into a deficit on their drugs budget. Five of those health authorities —East Kent, Leicestershire, Manchester, South Cheshire and Suffolk —were in deficit by over £2 million, and no fewer than 34 were in deficit by over £1 million, including Shropshire health authority, which serves my constituency.
Last year, the total overspend on drugs in the national health service was no less than £69 million. That sum would have helped the NHS to recruit an additional 4,000 nurses or abolish dental charges throughout England. That sum is in excess of that required for the construction of the new hospital in Barnet.
All hon. Members are aware of the strains on the NHS drugs budget. The technological, scientific and medical breakthroughs that many of this country's leading drug companies are pursuing and achieving puts a strain on our health service, as does increasing life expectancy. The raising, year by year, of expectations among patients and the demands that they place on their GPs and hospitals also cause strain. However, the drugs overspend to which I am drawing attention does not benefit the patient or the taxpayer. It benefits pharmaceutical companies and, sadly, some general practitioners.
It is a shocking fact that, of last year's £69 million drugs overspend, no less than £66 million could have been saved. If that money could have been saved on behalf of the NHS, why was it not? The answer is that pharmaceutical companies push branded drugs in our NHS and some general practitioners are addicted to those drugs. For companies and GPs, there is profit in dispensing branded drugs in place of generic drugs.
As I said, there are two scams. First, there should be a Government health warning that hospital-led prescribing can be habit-forming, and it certainly will be if pharmaceutical companies have their way. Their intention is to push on our hospitals discounted, branded drugs that are as loss leaders all too irresistible to many hospital consultants. When patients are discharged from hospital with prescriptions for branded drugs, they in turn place almost irresistible pressure on GPs to prescribe the same brand.
Research by the University of Keele has demonstrated that some 70 per cent. of prescriptions in primary care are influenced by prescriptions in secondary care. In 1994, when the Select Committee on Health undertook investigations into the pharmaceutical industry and


prescribing practices, Dr. Malcolm Patch, a general practitioner from Maidenhead, gave evidence to the Committee.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Hanson.]

Mr. Bradley: Dr. Malcolm Patch told the Select Committee:
A lot of expensive drugs are initiated within hospitals. The patient then comes to us as their GPs for further prescriptions. It is very difficult to change this prescription even if there is a cheaper and equally effective alternative as the patient sees the consultant as the ultimate decision-maker on therapy.
Dr. Patch was clear about the pharmaceutical companies' motives. He said:
The drug companies sometimes offer loss-leaders' to hospital pharmacies at an artificially low price so that the drug replaces others …Thus the drug companies get their products initiated by hospital based doctors and we GPs are left to foot the ultimate, long-term and more expensive bill.
Dr. Patch's evidence was borne out by Professor Charles George, a consultant and member of the Royal College of Physicians, who told the Committee:
I would be the first to acknowledge that we have been responsible in hospitals for creating problems for general practitioners.
He cited the example of the drug Frumil. He said:
It's relatively cheap in hospital and it is very expensive out there in the community—there is no doubt that hospital doctors have created problems for general practitioners because of that.
I can tell the House that, while only 37 per cent. of GPs' prescriptions are branded, they account for 49 per cent. of the drugs budget.

Dr. Howard Stoate: My GP colleagues round the country will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that many of them share his concerns. Many GPs are already trying to prescribe generic rather than branded drugs, and many health authorities offer incentive schemes for prescribing, to ensure best value. Those schemes allow GPs to have money to spend on equipment in their practices, if they can show genuine savings on the drugs budget.

Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which prompts me to make it clear to the House and to general practitioners throughout the country that I am certainly not alleging that they are all out to exploit the national health service and to make a profit from branded drugs. That is not the case. I am speaking of a small minority of GPs, but of a very large sum, which belongs to the NHS, to the community, to patients and to the taxpayer.
As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a great deal of best practice, to which I hope to refer later. The problem is that it is not yet as widespread as it ought to be. I hope that, by raising the issue tonight, we can encourage and educate more doctors so that that best practice is more extensively adopted.
The price differentials between drugs dispensed in the hospital and those dispensed in the community can be staggering. Shropshire health authority tells me that the

cost of prescribing the diuretic Frumil in hospital is 6 per cent. of the cost of prescribing it in the community—6 per cent. In other parts of the country, Frumil costs 20p per patient per day in the hospital, but £6.20 per patient per day out in the community.
Mathematics has never been my strong point, but I calculate that as a differential of 2,800 per cent. Shropshire health authority tells me that the cost of Imdur in hospital is 2.5 per cent. of its cost when prescribed by a GP. In other health authorities, I understand that it costs 14p per patient per day to dispense in a hospital, but £11.14 per patient per day outside hospital. That is a differential of 8,000 per cent.
Giving drugs away in hospital makes good sense for the pharmaceutical companies, because only 20 per cent. of our drugs are dispensed there. The other 80 per cent. are dispensed in the community. That is where the profit is to be made. The drugs barons, whether they are in pharmaceutical companies or in a more illicit trade, know that first they must hook their victim—in this case, in the hospitals—so that then they can then take the money from him. For good measure, they provide a ceaseless flow of gifts for GPs—blotting pads, pens and calendars, which hang on the walls of surgeries—which serve as constant reminders of the names of the branded drugs that they want doctors to prescribe or dispense.
The drugs barons have another clever, but effective, means of achieving their ends. They give branded drugs names that are simple and memorable, compared with the Latin or Greek roots of the names of generic prescribed drugs. Thus diconal is a branded drug and di—I cannot pronounce that word; it is Milosevic hydrochloride. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. State) would ask me to give way.

Dr. Stoate: The correct pronunciation is dipipanone hydrochloride.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to my aid; I have been rehearsing all afternoon, but this has proved my point: it is a great deal easier to remember diconal than it is to remember whatever name my hon. Friend just—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not require simultaneous translation throughout the rest of his speech.

Mr. Bradley: I will resist the temptation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is a problem too in the pharmacies. When a GP writes a prescription with a branded name on it, the pharmacist is not in a position to dispense anything other than that brand. That is not the case if the prescription specifies a generic drug—the pharmacist can dispense whatever comes to hand or whatever he advises—whatever is cheapest.
The key point is that, in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no difference in effectiveness in terms of the patient's welfare between the branded and the generic drug, but there is most certainly a difference in price. That problem alone costs my health authority, Shropshire, about £400,000 a year. That money could, and should, be spent on cancer care or on the Cinderella services such as mental health and services for people with learning difficulties.
The second scam is a nice little earner for a small minority of GPs. This country has about 23,000 prescribing doctors in general practice and 4,000 doctors who are entitled to dispense. They practise, typically, in rural areas. They provide a dispensing service as a community service, which is very valuable for people in isolated communities who do not have access to pharmacies. Dispensing GPs have been providing that service for a long time and the vast majority of them do so with quiet efficiency and with no thought for anything other than the care of their patients.
However, dispensing is also an income supplement for those GPs and it was intended to be so from the beginning of the national health service, when it was recognised that GPs in rural communities had fewer patients than their counterparts in urban communities. They therefore tended to earn less, and deriving a fee—and therefore an income—from dispensing was regarded as a sensible way of equalising their pay.
The income that GPs derive from dispensing consists of four elements: a dispensing fee, a container allowance, a value added tax allowance and a payment of 10–5 per cent. of the cost of the drugs that they dispense. The problem is the built-in incentive for some GPs to abuse the system. It is clear, particularly in respect of proportionate element of remuneration, that the greater the volume of drugs dispensed, the higher the cost of those drugs, the more frequent the prescription and the larger the income supplement that doctors are able to derive.
The GP community has been concerned about that issue for many years. In 1996, the British Medical Association's General Medical Services Committee discussion document "Dispensing Remuneration" stated:
unfortunately the on-cost arrangement is open to the criticism that a dispensing doctor can increase gross earnings from dispensing more expensively".
That is absolutely true. Unhappily, the BMA concluded, somewhat complacently, that there was
no clear evidence of this.

Mr. David Drew: The situation is not helped by the fact that there has been something close to a state of war between dispensing general practitioners and pharmacists in rural areas. Until that is sorted out, problems will continue, and, inevitably, it will be the patients who suffer in the end.

Mr. Bradley: That is an important point. We are doing our best to dismantle the internal market in the national health service—to some effect, I think—but all too many rivalries, factions and hostilities persist. There are conflicts between one type of doctor and another, between doctors and pharmacies, between general practitioners and hospital consultants and between medical practitioners in general and administrators. Only when we ensure that everyone working in the health service works for the health service will we see the progress that we all wish to make. It strikes me at times that some people in the NHS—I stress that I am talking about a small minority, but that minority can wreak considerable damage—are more committed to their own interests than to the interests of the health service and the patients whom, they ultimately serve.
The incentive to which I have referred is clear and irresistible. Among non-dispensing GPs, the average prescribing of branded drugs is about 34 per cent.;

the remaining 66 per cent. consists of generic and cheaper drugs but, among dispensing GPs, the average is 74 per cent. In other words, only a third of non-dispensers' prescriptions consist of branded drugs, while the figure for dispensing GPs is virtually three quarters. The average cost of a prescription per patient per year is £118 in the case of dispensing GPs, while in the case of non-dispensing GPs it is as little as £78.
The question is this: is the original purpose of the scheme whereby doctors in rural communities were entitled to derive a supplementary income from the scheme being fulfilled? The answer is no. Between 1995 and 1997, the average GP's income was £47,000. The average for prescribing GPs was lower, at £45,800. However, the average for dispensing GPs, whose incomes had originally been considered to be falling below those of their urban counterparts, was £53,400—over £7,500, or 16 per cent., more than that of their non-dispensing colleagues. Dispensing GPs can make a profit of as much as £50,000 from dispensing. Some of them bank the money, as they are entitled to; others invest it in securing locums or other partners in their practices, and can therefore enjoy a rather more leisured life than other doctors.
In Shropshire, 21 of the 66 general practices dispense. Although they account for only 28 per cent. of the drugs budget, they account for 36 per cent. of its overspend. The Government have set a target: they intend 72 per cent. of all drugs dispensed to be generic by 2002. Shropshire's average is currently 57 per cent. Prescribers are working towards the 72 per cent. target, and are currently at 63 per cent., but the dispensers are way down the order at 30 per cent.
As I have said, I am not arguing that rural doctors, particularly those in isolated areas in, for example, Scotland and Pales, do not need that valuable income supplement. If we are to recruit and retain doctors who perform such a valuable duty in those communities, we must find a way in which to help them to supplement their income. Nor do 1 by any stretch of the imagination claim that all dispensing doctors are exploiting the system.
I pay tribute to the only dispensing practice in my constituency, the Wellington Road surgery in Newport. In the context of his intervention, the following information will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. The practice dispenses to some 5,000 of its 12,500 patients, but its generic prescribing rate is as high as 70 per cent. —well in excess of the county average in Shropshire and more than double the rate of dispensing colleagues throughout the county. The rate can be achieved if a practice is committed to keeping costs as low as possible on behalf of the NHS. The cost to Shropshire health authority of wasted dispensing of drugs is about £500,000. Two years ago, its deficit was £1.5 million. This year, it will be close to £1.2 million. Next year, it will be little better.
I should like to mention briefly some of the solutions that we might apply. It is to be hoped that peer pressure to contain budgets will be brought to bear when primary care groups are introduced on 1 April, but that in itself will not be enough. Shropshire health authority is pursuing a number of initiatives. It is seeking agreement between consultants in hospitals and GPs in the community to identify the costliest brands for the local NHS and to replace them with generics in hospital. Collaborative working is important in the NHS.


The health authority is introducing software packages, so that GPs can identify in their surgeries not only the most appropriate drugs for their patients, but how to secure them at the lowest possible prices. It is introducing incentives that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned earlier for reducing drug budgets among GPs.
In 1994, the Select Committee on Health made a recommendation about generic substitution. I hope that the Government will consider the benefits of generic substitution, which mean that a chemist or pharmacist can dispense the cheapest available drug that will do an effective job for the patient. However, we also need to rein in the pharmaceuticals, to contain their excesses and to bear in mind that in other countries, including Germany, there is legislation to ensure that the cheapest possible drugs are dispensed.
I have outlined the problem and shown that there are solutions at hand, but I look to the Minister for assurances that action will be taken to ensure that every last penny in the NHS goes on front-line health care, not into the pockets of private enterprise or a small minority of greedy doctors.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on his success in the ballot. He is right to identify as an important issue the cost of medicines to the health service. We are striving to achieve the best return on our use of NHS resources. The use of generic medicines can make a major contribution to achieving that goal.
It is widely accepted that, save for a few examples—treatments for epilepsy, for example, where it can be important that the patient receives the same brand—non-proprietary or generic medicines are as clinically effective as their proprietary or branded counterparts. Generics are generally cheaper and therefore more cost-effective.
We spend large sums on medicines. In 1997–98, total NHS expenditure on drugs was £5–1 billion. Of that, £4.1 billion represented drugs prescribed by family health service practitioners, mainly family doctors. Prescribing by hospitals accounted for just over £1 billion. Those two components have up to now been managed as distinct budgets by different parts of the NHS and subject to different rules and flexibilities. Those are major deficiencies, which our reforms, set out in the "New NHS" White Paper, are design to address.
Action to secure higher rates of generic prescribing continues to figure prominently. The national performance figure across health authorities of 63 per cent. generic prescribing hides wide variations in performance—the best being about 74 per cent., and the lowest about 49 per cent. Shropshire—in common with other authorities serving predominantly rural areas—is a relatively poor performer. The prevalence of dispensing doctors is likely to be a factor, but there are many other influences that can have a bearing and will vary from authority to authority.
I should caution my hon. Friend on his simple equation between the cost of non-generic prescribing and past overspends in health authority budgets. There can be a wide variety of local variations in performance giving rise to such differences.
We attach special significance to generic prescribing targets. By the end of March 2002, we aim to achieve an average national generic prescribing rate of at least 72 per cent. —the current figure is about 63 per cent—and at least half the practices currently below 40 per cent. to be brought above it. Currently, about 7 per cent. of practices are below 40 per cent.
I should like to deal now with the first specific issue that my hon. Friend raised—hospital prescribing. Prescribing by hospital specialists is managed by health authorities within their cash-limited budgets. Cash limits are a key mechanism for ensuring that the NHS stays within funding limits approved by Parliament.
Historically, however, prescribing by family doctors has been subject to a separate and distinct funding stream, which is often referred to as a non-cash limited budget. However, even here, the position is blurred, as 50 per cent. of that budget has been covered by general practitioner fundholding and managed as a cash-limited budget. Under the existing system, the risk of an overspend on those non-cash limited costs is managed centrally by the Department of Health.
It is important to realise that, in non-cash limited prescribing costs, although there may not be a pre-determined limit on the amount that may be spent in each health authority, all expenditure at national level has to be met from within the overall funds voted by Parliament for the NHS. Any increase in non-cash limited services above assumed levels has to be managed and may involve reducing or deferring expenditure in another area of the NHS budget. Those costs are therefore not a free good to the NHS.
There is the possibility that, within the arrangements that we inherited, hospital specialists working within cash-limited budgets may view the prescribing budgets of their GP colleagues as a free good. Any arrangement that provides for an artificial separation between clinical and financial responsibilities will almost inevitably result in clinicians making decisions without full knowledge of the financial consequences or decisions by NHS management that appear to disregard clinical efficacy. The current disjunction between clinical and financial responsibility creates fertile ground on which to develop perverse incentives to shift the cost to another budget.
My hon. Friend was right to identify the hospitals' huge influence and impact on the prescribing behaviour of GPs. Once a drug is prescribed by a hospital, the patient's reluctance to change is understandable. Clinicians in secondary and primary care should collaborate, but it is easy enough to recognise the temptation to shift the cost of treatment to another budget. In those circumstances, a hospital specialist may maximise the use of his budget without taking into account the overall impact on the use of NHS resources.
We acknowledge those problems. The introduction of unified budgets, from 1 April, is a key feature of the changes that we are making, which will remove the artificial funding barriers that actively discourage collaboration between doctors working in primary and secondary care. We shall bring together the hitherto separate components for hospital services and GP prescribing, with investment in GP practice infrastructure, in a single funding stream.
Those changes will complement the changes that we are making in management of the NHS. Unified budgets will help primary care groups and primary care trusts to


fulfil their key functions—developing local health services and improving the health of their local populations—by enabling them to decide the priorities across the full range of their responsibilities, in the full light of those budgets and the wider NHS.
If a medicine is judged to be the most appropriate treatment, local mechanisms should be in place to ensure the most cost-effective provision of that medicine. Most health authorities have established forums to deal with those issues—generally through area prescribing committees, which facilitate the exchange of information between primary and secondary care. The role of the committees is being developed to encompass the introduction of primary care groups.
Certainly, we do not expect hospitals to buy in medicines at artificially low prices, taking no account of the true cost to the NHS resulting from wider use in primary care. I am pleased to note that Shropshire health authority is working with its primary care groups and trusts to address those concerns.
I now turn to the second point that my hon. Friend raised—the concerns being expressed about the prescribing activity of doctors, predominantly serving rural areas, who are allowed to dispense medicines to those of their patients who do not have easy access to a community pharmacy. The basic allegation is that the so-called dispensing doctors dispense more costly branded medicines to their patients rather than the cheaper generic versions of equal clinical efficacy. It is suggested that the way in which we pay dispensing doctors influences their prescribing activity.
As has been recognised, there are sound reasons for allowing some doctors to dispense medicines to some of their patients. Generally, doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. Patients benefit from the expertise of two professions. However, in rural areas where a pharmacy would not be viable, GPs may be required or permitted to dispense. About 16 per cent. of GPs in England are dispensing doctors, covering about 3.2 million patients. In those cases the GPs provide a valuable additional service and it is one which is greatly appreciated by their patients. Of course patients must have adequate services available to them wherever they live. Equally we must ensure that those services are provided in the most efficient manner possible.
I have already described the targets that we have set on generic prescribing and we have introduced a number of developments to underpin the work, including the introduction of unified budgets. Primary care groups are being encouraged to make fuller use of other professional expertise, particularly that of pharmacists, to support better prescribing practice. Prescribing incentive schemes will continue to be developed, allowing GP practices to

retain a share of the savings they make as a result of better prescribing. There will also be a role for computerised decision support systems such as PRODIGY.
My hon. Friend has recognised that there are already good examples of improvements that can be secured if practices work together to a common goal.
Dispensing doctors will be subject to the programme of action. In particular, their performance will be subject to scrutiny by their peers in primary care groups, and we expect them to contribute to the development of cost-effective services for their patients within the new financial and management structures.
Shropshire health authority recognises the desirability of improving the prescribing behaviour of its GPs. I understand that the authority is forecasting a 3 per cent. overspend, involving some £1.16 million, against this year's prescribing budget. It has identified the specific need to improve generic prescribing performance by its dispensing practices and has established pilots to seek to develop ways to improve generic prescribing, but in a manner which does not jeopardise practice income and which maintains services to patients.
It is commonly claimed that the dispensing doctor pay system actively discourages the use of generic products. Dispensing doctors are paid by a mixture of fee per prescription item and an on-cost allowance of 10–5 per cent. of the list price of drugs dispensed. It is argued that there is an in-built incentive to use higher-cost drugs because they get paid more for doing so. The evidence is not clear, but the perception is there, that doctors may be influenced in their prescribing decisions. That is recognised by professional representatives and, as my hon. Friend said, back in 1996, the then General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association suggested that a more appropriate method of payment would be by a higher professional fee alone, which would provide the same total amount of remuneration as at present provided by fees and on-costs combined
I recognise that there may be merit in arguments that we should underpin our basic strategy by removing anomalies within dispensing doctor pay arrangements, but it a complex issue and one that we are looking at. I will reflect carefully on the points made during tonight's debate.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. We place great emphasis on the continued promotion of cost-effective prescribing, and increased rates of generic prescribing will continue to have a key place in our strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.